Most Popular
| Top Stories | Commented | Featured |
ATI Radeon HD 5570 Review featured
Windows 7 overtakes Vista among enthusiasts, plus other interesting trends
IBM launches next generation Power 7 CPU, servers
AMD's six-core Thuban to have feature like Turbo Boost?
Google to launch Twitter-like service for Gmail
Intel unveils Itanium 9300 series enterprise processors
TechSpot RSSThe Web
Student fined $675,000 for sharing 30 songs
Although it promised not to file any ‘new’ lawsuits against file sharers towards the end of last year, opting to work with ISPs instead, the RIAA also said it has no choice but to move forward with the legal process on previously-filed cases. Most of them are settled early on for between $3,000 and $5,000, but one in particular made it to court recently and ended with a hefty fine of $675,000 for Boston college student Joel Tenenbaum.
Tenenbaum admitted to downloading and distributing music over peer-to-peer networks and was prosecuted and convicted on the basis of 30 shared songs. He received a fine of $22,500 per infringement, beyond the minimum $750 per song charge, but well below the maximum of $150,000 for willful infringement. His lawyer, Harvard Law School professor Charles Nesson, plans to appeal the decision and said things might have gone differently at trial had the defense been allowed to argue Fair Use.
This is the second major courtroom victory for the RIAA against an individual file-sharer. In an earlier instance, Jammie Thomas was initially asked to pay 220,000 dollars, but won a retrial, after which a Minnesota jury actually raised the fine to a record $1.92 million for only 24 tracks.
Tenenbaum admitted to downloading and distributing music over peer-to-peer networks and was prosecuted and convicted on the basis of 30 shared songs. He received a fine of $22,500 per infringement, beyond the minimum $750 per song charge, but well below the maximum of $150,000 for willful infringement. His lawyer, Harvard Law School professor Charles Nesson, plans to appeal the decision and said things might have gone differently at trial had the defense been allowed to argue Fair Use.
This is the second major courtroom victory for the RIAA against an individual file-sharer. In an earlier instance, Jammie Thomas was initially asked to pay 220,000 dollars, but won a retrial, after which a Minnesota jury actually raised the fine to a record $1.92 million for only 24 tracks.
User Comments (43)
Post a comment| captain828 on August 3, 2009 1:15 PM | So if I share a single track I can get fined
$150k??! This makes no sense... a track is as little as $0.5 if not lower. Hell, even it cost $2 it would still be absurd. Or is he paying for all the other people not caught?? |
| Guest on August 3, 2009 1:37 PM | when does the 'cruel and unusual' aspect of law come into this equation because right now this just seems ridiculous. |
| TomSEA on August 3, 2009 1:44 PM | (shrugs) It's $150k maximum per willful infringement. Obviously ridiculous when I can get songs off of iTunes and Amazon for .89 each. But these laws were designed a long time ago to protect people's products from theft and/or reproduction. And these laws weren't based on "just a song" or "just a movie," it was based on proprietary rights. It's also pretty clear that people outside of the illegal file-sharing community agree with these laws considering the hefty 1.92 million fine increase by a jury in Minnesota. |
| phantasm66 on August 3, 2009 2:46 PM | This is a sham. Someone's life is ruined over 30 bloody tunes but there are people walking the streets using knives, fighting and stealing. Society's focus is all wrong, the priorities are all wrong. This person's life is ruined but in Scotland they are only jailing the most persistent and violent of offenders. Certain people do the most horrible things again and again and again and escape punishment. |
| Guest on August 3, 2009 3:05 PM | People know the risks. They know that it is theft, against
the law, and illegal. Yet, they keep on doing it. I don't
have any mercy for these people. They did wrong and they
have to pay for it. It would like someone shooting someone and then asking that they don't get thrown in jail. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. You did the crime, now you have to pay for it. |
| Guest on August 3, 2009 3:23 PM | This can ONLY happen in the US. The country where everybody
is sueing everybody for anything and everything. Stupid
country. I'm against piracy, but this is way out of proportions. |
| guyver1 on August 3, 2009 3:44 PM | And once again the Artists who wrote those songs wont see a
damn penny.... The System has failed. |
| Guest on August 3, 2009 4:04 PM | Well, it's obvious that the RIAA wants the money, because if they really wanted to stop the downloading of music they would have to shut down one source at a time. |
| Guest on August 3, 2009 4:33 PM | you must have enough money to buy everything so its not a problem for you. |
| Guest on August 3, 2009 4:35 PM | you must have enough money to buy everything so its not a problem for you. pardon for the mistake. |
| Brewskie on August 3, 2009 5:11 PM | "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments
inflicted." Eight Amendment to the US Constitution. And I don't want to hear about this being civil. The Constitution makes no reference to whether it only applies to criminal proceedings. |
| Twister123 on August 3, 2009 7:45 PM | yea , the punishment must fit the crime , isn't that enshrined somewhere or a rule of thumb of some kind , that story even made it over here , but it was one of those end of the news bit size stories , the reporter joked "he won't be doing that again" , surely he can appeal to someone , and water gets poisoned in india , thousands dye and no proceedings of any kind , |
| DarkCobra on August 3, 2009 7:53 PM | Indeed this is absurd as the punishment has to fit the
crime. When an artist &/or record company establishes the
value of a given piece of intellectual property (in this
case a single song at .99 cents on most authorized purchase
sites) then this same artist/record company cannot and
should not be allowed to suddenly drastically change that
value by claiming the value of that "SAME" intellectual
property should now be over 100 thousand dollars per song
when somebody makes a copy for themselves (which is a simple
theft). Such a notion doesn't even pass the laugh test! Let's say I steal the entire CD of that same intellectual property from a store which let's say sells for $20 tops. I then get caught. At best it would be a simple petty theft misdemeanor and I would probably pay a small fine &/or do some weekend community service or something. However, the value of the stolen CD would never be suddenly revalued in court as being worth 100 thousand dollars! On appeal to higher more intelligent court this will no doubt be drastically reduced. |
| Twister123 on August 3, 2009 8:04 PM | I remember cassette tapes , getting my first double cassette tape player , I must owe someone a fortune , I hope they don't reopen any cold cases , or 99% of the tape deck generation are off to jail . |
| red1776 on August 3, 2009 8:22 PM | ok Twister...now this is draconian! |
| Twister123 on August 3, 2009 8:41 PM | I think your right red , thats a good way of putting it , imagine everybody who copied or shared something , music , video , whatever was tried , prosecuted and fined , we would have more criminals than non-criminals on the planet. |
| captaincranky on August 3, 2009 8:57 PM | The RIAA must have had Monika Lewinsky, under this Judge's robe. |
| red1776 on August 3, 2009 9:05 PM | The RIAA must have had Monika
Lewinsky, under this Judge's robe. my cartoon
bubble just had a certain scene from a 'Police Academy'
movie
|
| Twister123 on August 3, 2009 9:08 PM | he actually got off not to badly , I know that sounds nuts but he was fined 22,500 per infringement , the maximum is 150,000 , did u read the bit about the guy who managed to get a retrial ,holy s##t ...., |
| captaincranky on August 3, 2009 9:20 PM | he actually got off not to badly ,
I know that sounds nuts but he was fined 22,500 per
infringement , the maximum is 150,000 , did u read the bit
about the guy who managed to get a retrial ,holy s##t
...., 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. |
| red1776 on August 3, 2009 9:24 PM | 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. |
| captaincranky on August 3, 2009 9:36 PM | 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. |
| Twister123 on August 3, 2009 9:43 PM | 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 |
| captaincranky on August 3, 2009 9:54 PM | 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.
|
| Twister123 on August 3, 2009 10:02 PM | 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 ! |
