A PhD student at Boston University has been ordered to pay $675,000, split between four record labels, for sharing music over the internet.Joel Tenenbaum, a 25 year old graduate student studying for a PhD in Physics, admitted using a variety of peer-to-peer software including Kazaa, iMesh and Napster to download and distribute the 30 songs focused on in the case, and admitted that he had lied during his first deposition in September 2008 when he suggested that some songs had been downloaded to his computer by family members or friends.
Evidence gathered using MediaSentry revealed that Tenenbuam was sharing 800 songs from his computer in August 2004, according to Ars Technica. He started sharing files in 1999, was warned by his father that he would get sued in 2002, received a warning letter from the law firm of the plaintiffs in this case in 2005, was sued in 2007, and only stopped part the way through 2008.
In a fairly one-sided trial, Judge Nancy Gertner found Tenenbuam guilty of violating copyright laws and left the jury to decide how much damages should be awarded - with US law stating that the record companies are entitled to between $750 and $30,000 for each of the 30 songs, or up to $150,000 per track if the infringments are found to be wilful. The jury decided on $22,500 for each infringement. The recording labels involved in the case were subsidiaries of Universal Music, Warner Music and Sony.
Mr Tenenbaum's attorney (and Harvard Law School professor) Charles Nesson told Ars Technica that the verdict was "a bankrupting award." Tenenbuam himself told Ars that he was "disappointed, but not surprised" and that he is unable to pay the fine and will have to file for bankruptcy if it stands. In a statement, the RIAA said, "We are grateful for the jury's service and their recognition of the impact of illegal downloading on the music community [...] We appreciate that Mr. Tenenbaum finally acknowledged that artists and music companies deserve to be paid for their work."
In June, American woman Jammie Thomas-Rasset was ordered to pay a total of $1.92 million in a similar trial with the songs contested in her case being fined for $80,000 each.
The only thing they're accomplishing is making themselves even more loathed than they already are.
they want others to hear and fear
What losses? Seriously.
He can't pay it, will never be able to pay it, and it's going to cost all of us other taxpayers money in court time in what is essentially a sham. I'm against this sort of mass pirating, but I resent the fact that we're holding the bill for a case which ultimately has no purpose other than to market their fear campaign.
You'd rather the RIAA let people illegally swap files?
I'd also rather they gave their money to the artists they claim to represent rather than legal eagles.
What exactly have the RIAA stopped? Nothing. They have created animosity towards themselves, they shaft the artists by not paying them the money they supposedly collect and in fact waste more money on these supposed legal battles than they win.
Time for the music industry to change, adopt new business models and quit with the draconian methodology.
What does that have to do with people downloading music illegaly, you are avoiding the issue.
Time for the music industry to change, adopt new business models and quit with the draconian methodology.
You too are avoiding the issue. If the RIAA did this more frequently, piracy would fall. And if it didn't, the RIAA would start making a lot of money.
The music industry is changing slowly, more downloadable albums, more free songs, etc...
Time for the music industry to change, adopt new business models and quit with the draconian methodology.
You too are avoiding the issue. If the RIAA did this more frequently, piracy would fall. And if it didn't, the RIAA would start making a lot of money.
The music industry is changing slowly, more downloadable albums, more free songs, etc...
You're delusional if you think that fines like this would do any bad to piracy.
I think you're on to something!
Damn that music privacy! All the secrets
I'd rather see the RIAA spend all this money improving the products they sell to legit customers.
Time for the music industry to change, adopt new business models and quit with the draconian methodology.
You too are avoiding the issue. If the RIAA did this more frequently, piracy would fall.
You are naive beyond understandment.
The RIAA has made a step backward and not a step forward.
More and more people share files online.
As long as the industry keep the same business model priracy will grow up no mater what.
Naive? Meet someone who has been fined this much and have their life changed, then maybe you will think twice about downloading illegaly. If that doesn't effect you, or this case doesn't concern you, then you are the one being naive.
Are you kidding me? The worst that happens is the person claims bankruptcy. So they can't get a mortgage for the next 7 years? Who even needs one
Who's the naive one?
I don't know where you live but here no people don't obey the speed limit. Sometime you get caugh and have to pay couple of hundred but most of the time you don't have to worry about it.
yes, please!
you stay under the speed limit to save your own life... you download music 'illegally' because you can
So what you are saying is that EVERYBODY there obeys the speed limit? Wow, the police must get bored!
I quite agree with you and been a smart guy pursuing a Ph.D. in physics you will think that he would act with responsibility. What an idiot.
+1
a few grand tops would be more reasonable.
the sad part is the JURY actually agreed to that amount? lol
He was downloading songs, not drink driving.
God, some of you seem to think piracy is as bad as rape.
a few grand tops would be more reasonable.
the sad part is the JURY actually agreed to that amount? lol
The jury didn't agree to that amount. The jury is what came up with that figure.
God, some of you seem to think piracy is as bad as rape.
No. We just don't think it's as innocent as taking more than your share from a take-a-penny tray.
So explain to me again why that justifies such astronomically high charges.
These little RIAA vs John/Jane Doe do very little to stop them losing money.
I love how they talk about the artists and how they should get paid when it's the record labels who keep the bulk of the profits per CD sold, the Artists make very little and have to do a ******** of tours and hope they can sell out to make any real money.
These little RIAA vs John/Jane Doe do very little to stop them losing money.
I love how they talk about the artists and how they should get paid when it's the record labels who keep the bulk of the profits per CD sold, the Artists make very little and have to do a ******** of tours and hope they can sell out to make any real money.
Yeah, if he files for bankruptcy, there's no way he's going to be able to get a mortgage to buy a house, if he hasn't already. Not always the best solution. Plus, filing for bankruptcy kills off your credit rating and pretty much bars you from ever getting a loan with reasonable interest again.
Pffff, your kidding?!!? This guy has a PhD in Physics... He's certainly going to get a high paid job. He will file for bankruptcy and then I bet you that banks will be running to lend him whatever he wants (after a small probation period). As soon as he'll get a job, he'll recover his credit.
Hmmm... no that's dangerous in is case. If he waits and get a job, than they won't let him go under bankruptcy and he will have to pay his debt and suffer all his life. Since he will probably get a high paid job considering his study, his best bet is to bankrupt now and then get a job, and I'm pretty sure a bank will be happy to lend him money after a small probation period, and he'll be back on track
They should do that always, first you get warning to stop and they don't make anything bad to you, if you still continue then you deserve it !
Well sharing if caring if you have the right to share.
Ooooo, so it goes like this, "SHARING IS CARING*" Heh
He made a tiny spelling error. Sheesh.
This is not a case against freedom. What he did was illegal. It is illegal to share copyrited material. That is not a violation against freedom.
And why would ISPs share personal informations with anyone beside the police ?
I'd love to see more artists break away from these companies and utilize internet for distribution - big music publishers are just obsolete ( they have completely lost control over, and can offer no protections for their "products" ) and trying to claw back the old way.. too sad. lol
As to what a song is worth is not the point, what is the point is that some hard working songwriter, or songwriter/singer who wrote that song is hoping for some pay for his/her work. By you or anyone else downloading the song without paying for deprives that individual of their right to be paid for their work.
The point is fear. Are some crimes worth hanging? In the medieval days they acknowledged (henry 8th) that they were not, but that to instill fear it was worth it.
And I'm against all music being free, look at iTunes, there is the internet being used for disribution at 99 cents a song. If you are not using that, and instead downloading illegally, you are an idiot. Big Music Publishers are just fighting piracy the way it knows how.
me personally "IF" im going to pay... i would probably not accept anything less than 192kbps BARE MINIMUM. although i would like to have it in .flac or if it was compressed to MP3 i would prefer to have it where the bit rates varies from around 128kbps to 320kbps with a general average bit rate around 192kbps range (i.e. the songs you rip from CD using EAC + LAME Encoder)
but at the end of the day it's hard to buy stuff nowadays since RIAA is just shady and very little money goes to the artists when buying music.
Lol, comedy gold.
Let's see.
I want to listen to a new song. I can either:
* Wait 'til it comes on the radio
* Download it for FREE
or
* Buy it for a nearly a quid (79p)
Yeah, only an idiot....
Let's see.
I want to listen to a new song. I can either:
* Wait 'til it comes on the radio
* Download it for FREE
or
* Buy it for a nearly a quid (79p)
Yeah, only an idiot....
But for that 79p you get Apple's amazing near-half CD bitrate music, but for free you get full CD quality - and who wants that?
Seriously, if they start selling at prices acceptable to those who don't want to get bored of their library within days, and at a decent bitrate, people will actually have a reason.
I go with CDs for the quality. Online distribution is the way forward if you put a bit of ****ing effort in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendm...es_Constitution
the amounts being awarded as damages $750USD is outrageous and I can't understand how anyone on a jury supposedly of a person's peers can consider 22.5k a fair amount!!! how did they arrive at that figure. not to kick the conspiracy theorists off but, there's no way on this earth that those people weren't told what to fine and paid handsomely for it.
I am not saying that what he did was right or even clever, because it clearly wasn't but this is outrageous and according to the US Constituion is illegal. I was under the impression, that tied with the bill of rights is to protect people and ensure they are treated fairly??!?!!?!?
At the end of the day, going after, students, housewives, families and the average person is not going to change piracy. It is a fact, just like the blank tape didn't kill off album sales!!!! Or the CD or the release of newt tech such as the internet. News for you people, games, music and software have been shared online for decades, long before the internet became what it is. Message boards, telnet sessions and ftp's were rife with what you wanted, if you knew how to get it.
The only difference now is scale, the RIAA and any other equivalent UK BPS etc are not going to beat piracy like this it just won't happen.
As for the rest of you moral police, tell me you have never done anything wrong EVER. Everybody and I mean everybody has done something either immoral or illegal in their lifetime.
"If you're not jacked in, you're not live"
You don't like it "SIT ON MY INTERFACE"
Phrases that may sound familiar to most of you unbelievable, the attitude amongst people on this site are like kids fighting in a playground, my dad's bigger then your dad, whah whah whah.
Get over yourselves and stop condemning people for such a petty issue, it's not going to change anything, just makes you unbelieveably pathetic. piracy is a crime F.A.C.T. Did this guy hurt anyone with his actions, nope, would he have bought the music otherwise, possibly not. There are always going to be people who obtain items for free or below retail value, because they can. You don't like it???
Welcome to society!!!!
I don't think this will solve any problems any more than you do, and I certainly think that it's a bit ridiculous, but I'm tired of people saying that it's illegal and against their constitutional rights and blah blah blah. Rights come with responsibilities, but I don't hear anyone demanding those.
The money they make comes from concerts and merch sales in which I personally support to the fullest. I'm willing to bet a lot of people are in the same boat.
I'd rather go see my favorite bands perform their talents in person than buy something that I "know" I can find for free online. It's also arguable that downloading music gives the artists more exposure and brings in more money in the long run. You don't see any bands calling it quits because they are out of money. Hell, older bands are coming back to tour just because that's where the money is at. That's enough proof.
Can anyone point me in the direction of an artist who will no longer release any music because people are downloading it? Would love to know.
The money they make comes from concerts and merch sales in which I personally support to the fullest. I'm willing to bet a lot of people are in the same boat.
I'd rather go see my favorite bands perform their talents in person than buy something that I "know" I can find for free online. It's also arguable that downloading music gives the artists more exposure and brings in more money in the long run. You don't see any bands calling it quits because they are out of money. Hell, older bands are coming back to tour just because that's where the money is at. That's enough proof.
I've read a few articles on how some studies suggest that people that pirate regularly go more to the movies and buy more albums than people that don't. Although some people are like addicted to downloading stuff they might never going to watch/listen to/ use. I doubt those buy anything
welcome to the real world!
-Spenser
Suppose I buy an album on CD. I listened to it, then passed it around to my friends. It goes from John, to Jane, to Bob, to Sue, etc. etc., ad nauseum. I still own the album, but I have, let's say 30 friends in total, borrow it. Have I commited a crime? No. How about my friends? Nope. What if each of them puts it in their computers, and rips it to their hard drives with Windows Media Player? Has anyone commited a crime them? Possibly my friends, but not me. What if I knew they were going to do that? Now what if they play it through their sterios and record the audio with another device? What if they use multiple audio cards to capture the audio mid stream? No crimes their. Sometimes you copy it, it's fine. Other times, it's not. There was this same type of brew-ha-ha over VHS being used to copy movies and television, yet no one really seemed to mind (except the NFL
The DMCA is a ridiculous, poorly written, peice of lobbyist trash that does nothing to serve consumers or artists, but has allowed large media outlets to sue the pants off of practically anyone they want. It fails to address many complicated issues that are rising out of the availability of digital content. This needs to be addressed fundementally, because financially ruining some grad student for sharing 30 songs won't solve the piracy issue. It may make some fatcat CEO feel like his insanely expensive legal team is worth their price tag, but it won't even make a dent in the illegal replication of digital content.
The entire free world (sarcasm fully intended) needs to look at copyright infringement and make it realistic.
Here in the UK it is still technically illegal to copy an album to MP3 (for example) for use on a portable music player. It's all fascist bulls*** and will change nothing.
We need to clearly define what constitutes ownership of copyrighted material, and what rights an owner has. The recent case of amazon pulling Orwell's books off of peoples Kindles post-purchase is a perfect example. It all points back to companies trying to ensure you don't actually own what you buy. Where else would you buy a product and let the seller tell you what you could do with it?
There's a lot of gray area with digital content still, and it needs to be flushed out. I don't condone the piracy of any artist's work, but random lawsuits aren't going to get anybody anywhere. I mean, the RIAA can't actually think that this guy will ever actually be able to pay the ridiculous fine, so their only purpose has to be to scare people into not doing it. Newsflash!!! You've been doing it for years, and guess what? It still doesn't work. Here's an idea; take the millions of dollars you spend on a legal team, and hire a team to work out a system that works well for consumers and is still profitable. Maybe some sort of universal protocol for music that allows it to be on any device, but when it's transferred the old copy automatically erases. Obviously, that's a bit simplistic, but you see what I'm getting at.
The mere fact that I buy a DVD should give me the right to transfer it to digital copy/backup my discs and keep for my own personal use. It's infuriating that they continue to try this crap. It's not going to change anything, people will continue to circumvent copyright protection until things are made fair for the consumer.
I know I will
Similar applies to music you buy a CD compilation its usually 1 disc is brilliant and the second disc is complete crap. Yes sure you could make up a CD from buying the songs online which end up being similar to price maybe upto a few pounds more expensive depending on how many track you could fit on the cd's but its still to expensive. If they did it at at least half the cost i reckon alot more ppl would buy the songs they want rather than downloading them.
Although it cant happen till the music industry stops being so damn greedy, which i highly doubt it ever will
Yeah, cuz the only music you can get in Canada are by Canadian artists..
Your post just reeks of ignorance. Do you honestly think the money made from this lawsuit (if any) or any other for that matter are going to go to the artists? Or that an artist would even agree to this kind of crap? I can tell you that many do not (and if I had to guess, it would be the majority), and have publically voiced this kind of opinion.
:| such ignorance.. some of the best music comes from canadian artists.
The same could be said for American artists, or British artitsts, or roving transilvanian gypsy artists depending on your tastes.
Another fallback of capitalism is the weight in which corporations can hold with the justice system. With things like the DMCA, the power really ends up in the hands of corporations.
Do the artists whose music was taken see any of this money? I'm just wondering how the money flow works as far as courts <--> RIAA <--> Record companies <--> Artists, because I actually don't know.
"US law stating that the record companies are entitled to between $750 and $30,000 for each of the 30 songs, or up to $150,000 per track if the infringments are found to be wilful. The jury decided on $22,500 for each infringement. The recording labels involved in the case were subsidiaries of Universal Music, Warner Music and Sony.
"
Unfortunately, your analogy is way off. This isn't like stealing a bar of chocolate.
What is it more akin to is obtaining and sharing the entire recipe and ingredients for specific chocolate bars, for users to make themselves.
The idea is that each time it's shared, the original chocolate maker has (supposedly) lost money.
At this point, your might as well talk about the real situation than a hypothetical chocolate bar
What is it more akin to is obtaining and sharing the entire recipe and ingredients for specific chocolate bars, for users to make themselves.
The idea is that each time it's shared, the original chocolate maker has (supposedly) lost money.
At this point, your might as well talk about the real situation than a hypothetical chocolate bar
Actually there is nothing illegal to sharing the recipe for any food product, I think you'll find it's right there on the side of the pack, it's under the heading ingredients
Even the $0.99 iTunes charge is too much.
Why?
Even the $0.99 iTunes charge is too much.
A CD album costs money to produce and distribute. Material, tangible stuff. The CD, the plastic, the logistics. For a 15 track album that costs $15, a great deal of the money goes into that.
When it comes to itunes, the distribution costs are lowered significantly. Sure the server costs, but I believe one server can handle much more requests and more effectively and for less money than having craploads of trucks delivering CDs to retail stores. So yes, it's a ripoff.
One thing people are probably forgetting is that the artists will probably never see a penny of that $675,000.
yaa, it should be nice because after all they have big shares on this programs. sick? f*** sick.
im sad with the youth these days to give such power to bitches like suppa duppa gangster rap style... also sad with the governments for alowing those lobbies run forward with their tactics. hey, war for ones, big biz to some.
The thing was he also had a future probably waiting with his qualifications
Absolutely no sympathy at all. They already have all the money in the world, this is why I and many others support piracy.
If you were sitting on the jury and knew that this college student was previous warned of his actions, yet continued to be an arrogant idiot, you too would have slammed him. He basically deserves two punishments.
He's got 40+ years to pay it off and think about how stupid he was for not listening the first time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVHhuTUp_30
Ashley
SHAME!!!
The American woman got it worse...
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.