31 songs = $675K


Locutus
#1
via Fark

For downloading and distributing 31 songs when he was 16 years old, file-sharer ordered by judge to pay $675,000.00


Asinine is right.


Joel Tenenbaum must pay $675,000 (426,000) in damages awarded to the major US music labels after his request for a retrial was turned down.

Mr Tenenbaum, 25, was found guilty of illegally downloading and distributing 31 songs in 2007.

A judge in Massachusetts ruled that the damages, set by a jury in 2009, had been fair.

Mr Tenenbaum was 16 years old when a letter was sent to his parents' home accusing him of illegal file-sharing.

He was asked to pay $5,250 (3,319) for downloading seven songs. He claims he offered $500 (316) which was all he could afford at the time, and it was declined.


more


BBC News - US music file-sharer must pay damages
 
EagleSmack
+1
#2
It would have cost him $31.00 tops if he had not chosen to steal them.
 
Niflmir
#3
Everyone knows that illegally sharing copyrighted material is a much more serious offense than running a red light. Now case law just embodies that common sense.
 
SLM
+3
#4  Top Rated Post


Just one perspective.
 
MapleDog
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

http://dudelol.com/img/dave-grohl-quote.jpg
Just one perspective.

Exactly,on other forum,some members had posted a chart that showed things related to movies and musics,when tv came they thought it would kill the movie industry which it did not,when the VCR appeared they thought it would make them lose money again it did not,same for DVDs and the internet.

who is really bitching about it,is it the producers,the artists,or the suits who don't do anything other than sucking the industry?
 
Bar Sinister
#6
The punishment does not fit the crime, but that is not unusual in the US where extreme penalties for minor offenses are common. Fortunately, Canada has no laws restricting music sharing. I wonder how the music industry thinks it is going to collect from this "felon." If I was him I would emmigrate to some other country and challenge to US courts to come after him.
 
EagleSmack
#7
Yeah thats a good idea and will solve his problems
 
shadowshiv
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar SinisterView Post

The punishment does not fit the crime, but that is not unusual in the US where extreme penalties for minor offenses are common. Fortunately, Canada has no laws restricting music sharing. I wonder how the music industry thinks it is going to collect from this "felon." If I was him I would emmigrate to some other country and challenge to US courts to come after him.

Unfortunately, that may not be feasible, unless he moves to a country where they don't allow extradition to the US. There was a fellow in the UK that was brought to the US for charges (file-sharing) as the UK didn't attempt to stop it. I'm not sure what the end result of that was, or if it's still ongoing.

I can't say I feel too much sympathy for the music execs, as they charge about $20 for a CD and usually there's only one or two good songs on it. Plus, it sounds like they also screw over the actual talent as well due to the amount of times the bands dump their record companies and either go at in by themselves(if they can afford it) or jump onto a different label.
 
SLM
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by MapleDogView Post

Exactly,on other forum,some members had posted a chart that showed things related to movies and musics,when tv came they thought it would kill the movie industry which it did not,when the VCR appeared they thought it would make them lose money again it did not,same for DVDs and the internet.

who is really bitching about it,is it the producers,the artists,or the suits who don't do anything other than sucking the industry?

I can't say I agree wholeheartedly that people should always and without any kind of barrier be allowed to download whatever in the hell they want. It is an infringement of copyright, and in the end, there is an artists/creator in there that may be losing out. However having said that, this 'fine' is grotesquely disproportionate to the 'crime'. Particularly given the age of the offender at the time of the offense, in my opinion.

The majority of artists that I've heard speak out on this issue, with the possible exception of Lars Ulrich, seem to have a point of view very similar to Dave Grohl. And I know the comedian Louis CK has done a lot of direct to fan sales for show tickets coupled with some free dvd downloads on his website which have been enormously successful and have netted him a profit at the same time. (I think I posted an article on it a few months ago).

From what I can see, the ones who are losing out here are the middle men, but given the advances in technology I think the middle man has become obsolete in a lot of ways and they are desperately trying to hold onto their hold on an industry that, for the most part, has become untenable. It's well past the time when the industries caught up with methods of delivery for entertainment that consumers want. That is what market driven economies are supposed to be about right? Supply and demand? If file sharing and distribution is predominantly via the internet is what people want, then they have to get with that program and not gouge the consumer to maintain an 'old system'.
 
Bar Sinister
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by shadowshivView Post

Unfortunately, that may not be feasible, unless he moves to a country where they don't allow extradition to the US. There was a fellow in the UK that was brought to the US for charges (file-sharing) as the UK didn't attempt to stop it. I'm not sure what the end result of that was, or if it's still ongoing.

I can't say I feel too much sympathy for the music execs, as they charge about $20 for a CD and usually there's only one or two good songs on it. Plus, it sounds like they also screw over the actual talent as well due to the amount of times the bands dump their record companies and either go at in by themselves(if they can afford it) or jump onto a different label.

It's the old problem of getting blood out of a stone. I doubt that the victim of the US justice system will ever have the cash to pay the court's judgment. The music company can go after him all it wants, but if he doesn't have the money, he doesn't have the money. It's a unenforceable ruling and one that I would simply ignore.
 
shadowshiv
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar SinisterView Post

It's the old problem of getting blood out of a stone. I doubt that the victim of the US justice system will ever have the cash to pay the court's judgment. The music company can go after him all it wants, but if he doesn't have the money, he doesn't have the money. It's a unenforceable ruling and one that I would simply ignore.

They might garnish his wages and with that amount, he'd be paying it off for the rest of his life!
 
WLDB
#12
MP3s are not worth a penny. I'd never pay for one. The files are so compressed you lose a lot of the sound quality. They certainly arent worth over 500k.

This has always happened and always will. Who here hasnt taped a TV show with their VCR? Or taped a song off the radio with a cassette? Its the same thing and everyone has done it at some point. In all cases what you get from these methods is a s*itty reproduction. If you really like it and wanted a good copy of it you'd have to buy it in the end.
 
Praxius
#13
16 years old at the time of the "crime"
Wouldn't he be a young offender or does the US not have a youth justice system?

Must make the big record labels feel like a big man going after (at the time) a 16 year old kid.

I've shared music online with all kinds of people, but they were live bootlegs that the band in question didn't have issue with and in fact promoted their sharing as it helped them to get heard and better known, thus more people purchasing their work & more importantly, get more people coming to their concerts, which is where the real money for bands/artists is at.

CD's, shirts, posters, signed memorabilia, and of course the $30-100+ for each ticket sale..... I don't see the big deal with sharing music online & most artists out there who are with the times don't see the big deal either.

This is just another Marc Emery situation. They know they won't get that money, they're just making an example out of him.

Boycot the label, they lose more money. Their artists & bands lose money because of the label and turn to another label.

Just a thought. Perhap it puts the artists & bands in the middle and suffer, but when their labels mark their customers/fans as the enemy, rather than a means of free advertising, they open a pandoras box, and it's only a matter of time before all of this hits a wall & leaves a big mess.
Last edited by Praxius; Aug 28th, 2012 at 06:28 AM..
 
MapleDog
+1
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by PraxiusView Post

16 years old at the time of the "crime"
Wouldn't he be a young offender or does the US not have a youth justice system?

Must make the big record labels feel like a big man going after (at the time) a 16 year old kid.

I've shared music online with all kinds of people, but they were live bootlegs that the band in question didn't have issue with and in fact promoted their sharing as it helped them to get heard and better known, thus more people purchasing their work & more importantly, get more people coming to their concerts, which is where the real money for bands/artists is at.

CD's, shirts, posters, signed memorabilia, and of course the $30-100+ for each ticket sale..... I don't see the big deal with sharing music online & most artists out there who are with the times don't see the big deal either.

I'd guess they do,but if you do something like this,which takes money out of the hands of the suits,who then can't buy the ferarri they wanted,then its not important how old you are,you commited an horrible crime.
 
Bar Sinister
+2
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by shadowshivView Post

They might garnish his wages and with that amount, he'd be paying it off for the rest of his life!

That could be done depending on the sort of job he has. However, as those attempting to collect child support in the US have found garnisheeing someone's wages is not all that easy. All the person in question has to do is change jobs, become self-employed or change banks or physical location. Somehow I can't see the local courts being all that keen on going after someone for downloading a few tunes. And then there is the fact that he could complicate matters by marrying and put everything in his wife's name. This sort of court decision really only works well on someone who has identifiable assets that can be seized. This case is not really about justice it is really about the attempts of media giants to intimidate the citizens of the US by making an example out of someone.
 
shadowshiv
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar SinisterView Post

That could be done depending on the sort of job he has. However, as those attempting to collect child support in the US have found garnisheeing someone's wages is not all that easy. All the person in question has to do is change jobs, become self-employed or change banks or physical location. Somehow I can't see the local courts being all that keen on going after someone for downloading a few tunes. And then there is the fact that he could complicate matters by marrying and put everything in his wife's name. This sort of court decision really only works well on someone who has identifiable assets that can be seized. This case is not really about justice it is really about the attempts of media giants to intimidate the citizens of the US by making an example out of someone.

Thanks for the clarification.

I just wonder why the judge got to such a high dollar amount. You can purchase a song on I-Tunes for $1.99, which means you could purchase 31 songs for $61.69! I can see the judgement being higher, but $675000? That's ridiculous!
 
Bar Sinister
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by PraxiusView Post

16 years old at the time of the "crime"
Wouldn't he be a young offender or does the US not have a youth justice system?

Must make the big record labels feel like a big man going after (at the time) a 16 year old kid.

The fact of the matter is that downloading music in much of the rest of the world is not illegal; and where it is, penalties for breaking the law usually fit the crime. If this kid had lived in Canada he would not even be prosecuted.

Quote: Originally Posted by shadowshivView Post

Thanks for the clarification.

I just wonder why the judge got to such a high dollar amount. You can purchase a song on I-Tunes for $1.99, which means you could purchase 31 songs for $61.69! I can see the judgement being higher, but $675000? That's ridiculous!


Wasn't it a jury trial? I find that US juries often tend to award obsenely large settlements to plaintiffs. Remember the case of the MacDonald's hot coffee suit?
 
shadowshiv
+1
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar SinisterView Post


Wasn't it a jury trial? I find that US juries often tend to award obsenely large settlements to plaintiffs. Remember the case of the MacDonald's hot coffee suit?

You are absolutely correct(I just went back and checked)! That being said, you would think that he would be able to successfully appeal that ludicrous amount!

The reason I say that is that the woman who sued McDonald's in the hot coffee incident ended up with far less than originally awarded, didn't she?
 
SLM
+1
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by shadowshivView Post

You are absolutely correct(I just went back and checked)! That being said, you would think that he would be able to successfully appeal that ludicrous amount!

The reason I say that is that the woman who sued McDonald's in the hot coffee incident ended up with far less than originally awarded, didn't she?

I actually saw a really interesting documentary a few months ago that featured the McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit. A lot of what people think they know about it, isn't really true.
 
shadowshiv
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

I actually saw a really interesting documentary a few months ago that featured the McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit. A lot of what people think they know about it, isn't really true.

You'll have to explain the details to me in a future PM!
 
Johnnny
#21
the 31 songs for $675K is way way over kill

a thousand dollars a song would be reasonable punishment if you wanted to be a prick about it
 
EagleSmack
+3
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar SinisterView Post


Wasn't it a jury trial? I find that US juries often tend to award obsenely large settlements to plaintiffs. Remember the case of the MacDonald's hot coffee suit?

I was on jury duty for a foolish lawsuit. It was a rear end collision that had absolutely no damage whatsoever to either car. I am talking none. Not even a scratch. She was sueing for a large amount of cash for pain and suffering and the full amount of her honeymoon plus a little extra. She said she couldn't enjoy her honeymoon.

She got NOTHING and I led the charge to give her nothing. I said these are one of those lawsuits we always hear about.

Afterwards the judge came into the jury room to thank us and someone asked that question BS... Do juries often rule in favor of the plantiffs for these cases?

He said most often they do not. He said juries, contrary to popular belief, are very skeptical of people bring frivolous lawsuits and often rule against the plaintiff. He said it is the big cases that make the news give the perception that it is widespread. He said he was not surprised with our decision.
 
shadowshiv
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

I was on jury duty for a foolish lawsuit. It was a rear end collision that had absolutely no damage whatsoever to either car. I am talking none. Not even a scratch. She was suieng for a large amount of cash for pain and suffering and the full amount of her honeymoon plus a little extra. She said she couldn't enjoy her honeymoon.

She got NOTHING and I led the charge to give her nothing. I said these are one of those lawsuits we always hear about.

Afterwards the judge came into the jury room to thank us and someone asked that question BS... Do juries often rule in favor of the plantiffs for these cases?

He said most often they do not. He said juries, contrary to popular belief, are very skeptical of people bring frivolous lawsuits and often rule against the plaintiff. He said it is the big cases that make the news give the perception that it is widespread. He said he was not surprised with our decision.

Thanks for doing your part in convincing them to do the right thing, EagleSmack!

And thanks for letting me know that what I thought about jury rulings in lawsuit cases was totally wrong.
 
EagleSmack
+1
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by shadowshivView Post

Thanks for doing your part in convincing them to do the right thing, EagleSmack!

And thanks for letting me know that what I thought about jury rulings in lawsuit cases was totally wrong.

And my ambulance chaser lawyer friend (from another state) said it was absolute Bull S*** that we didn't give her anything and that juries have no idea of the pain and suffering that his clients go through!

Oh and he said we were the worst kind of jury to try a case in front of as we have no sympathy whatsoever.

It made me laugh.
 
shadowshiv
+2
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

And my ambulance chaser lawyer friend (from another state) said it was absolute Bull S*** that we didn't give her anything and that juries have no idea of the pain and suffering that his clients go through!

And with those comments, he shows just why people despise lawyers so much.
 
EagleSmack
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by shadowshivView Post

And with those comments, he shows just why people despise lawyers so much.

He is a good pal of mine but he is absolutely THAT lawyer.
 
damngrumpy
+2
#27
He stole someones lively hood and therefore he pays. I think they should attach
the order to every job and every amount of money plus interest until its paid. Now
maybe people will stop stealing music and book material. No sympathy here
 
shadowshiv
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

He is a good pal of mine but he is absolutely THAT lawyer.

He fits the stereotype, eh? I guess it shows that he's not in "lawyer mode" 24-7(the fact that you can still be friends, that is).
 
EagleSmack
+1
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by shadowshivView Post

He fits the stereotype, eh? I guess it shows that he's not in "lawyer mode" 24-7(the fact that you can still be friends, that is).

We were in the Marines together so maybe that explains it. Oh and he shaves strokes off his golf score card as well.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
+2
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar SinisterView Post

The punishment does not fit the crime, but that is not unusual in the US where extreme penalties for minor offenses are common. Fortunately, Canada has no laws restricting music sharing. I wonder how the music industry thinks it is going to collect from this "felon." If I was him I would emmigrate to some other country and challenge to US courts to come after him.

I thought Canada had a copyright act of some sort.

I doubt this guy would have got tried if all he did was download 31 songs for free. He shared them to others. No doubt somebody he shared to ratted him out. But the record companies like to try and convict the little guys as a form of intimidation. Generally works. Of the $1 you pay at iTunes, probably 10 cents goes to Apple, 10 cents goes to the artist. The record company execs (with no musical talent) get the 80 cents.
 

Similar Threads

7
Songs About Life
by changoo | May 17th, 2011
2
Best and Worst Songs Ever
by Cannuck | Mar 29th, 2009
0
funk songs?
by nitzomoe | Jun 30th, 2005
14
3 songs for your funeral?
by peapod | Oct 24th, 2004
no new posts