US student ordered to pay $675K fine to the RIAA

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.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Skype in danger of being shut down

Next Story

Amazon is now taking OS X Snow Leopard pre-orders

126 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

the jury is loony. our fate is sealed by a jug blowing bandjo playing 10 point IQ hill billy!!! what's the point of paying lawyers if the jury is too stupid to listen?

how the hell do they expect him to pay... wash dishes till he dies? seiously the RIAA turds should just die and Neo Razgriz the only point i will agree on is the crap apps he was using.

I'm not going to comment too much on this...Those fines are not for the small sharing individual. It's for big criminals. It's the big criminals that could afford it. They need to rewrite how they fine people for sharing music. I agree that this person was a dumb a**. But the fine should have been no more than 100k.

The fine at the most should have been a couple of grand due to repeated infringements!!!! 100K that's just as retarded as the actual award.

There has to be a proportion between the crime and the punishment and I fail to see that here. It is unjust to take an individual who has not committed that bad of a crime and punish him excessively just to make an example out of him. I think $1000 to $2000 is too light. They need to make it hurt, but $675K is over the top.

Kudos to the RIAA for giving him a warning, but 675K is to excessive, I mean 1-2 thousand dollars would do just fine

Gully said,
Kudos to the RIAA for giving him a warning, but 675K is to excessive, I mean 1-2 thousand dollars would do just fine

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.

I feel so so sorry for this person, what a shame.

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.

I think his point is that the RIAA does all this under the guise that they are protecting their artists and their artist's intellectual property. If sharing the music is effectively stealing from their artists, then the artists should be compensated accordingly from the settlement. They won't be, so the RIAA is full of S***.

mann, i dont like that idea... do you like to turn on MTV and see those rappers showing those cars that cost like some millions? in a house that cost 1 or 2 billion? sick.
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.

TonyLock said,
$150,000 per track? F Off!
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.

Quit illegally downloading their music if you want them to change their business model. Otherwise they can only conclude that there is a huge demand for their products.

one thing I have always been curious about...if it is just a "typical" jury of random peers...how does an average joe determine a specific amount that should be awarded per song? do they have an RIAA member to help 'advise' them? Obviously there would be some decent math that would need to be done to determine any sort of "true" value lost from a certain amount of tracks shared...

its in the article.....

"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.
"

If a kid steals a chocolate bar from the shop? Does he need to pay $150,000 in 'damages'. The punishment here doesn't fit the crime. The person should only have to pay back the price of the song times 3. Not millions of dollars. Its ridiculous. There are people who drink drive, run over pedestrians at a crossing, and kill all their friends in the car and still not have to pay up anywhere near that much money in compensation...

Mango said,
If a kid steals a chocolate bar from the shop? Does he need to pay $150,000 in 'damages'. The punishment here doesn't fit the crime. The person should only have to pay back the price of the song times 3. Not millions of dollars. Its ridiculous. There are people who drink drive, run over pedestrians at a crossing, and kill all their friends in the car and still not have to pay up anywhere near that much money in compensation...

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 :P

Kirkburn said,
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 :P


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

This is more curiosity than anything else, I don't feel like arguing one way or the other, so I'd appreciate a link or reasonable answer.

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.

These cases almost always end up being out-of-court settlements for much smaller fines and it hardly ever hits the media at that stage. They just want to scare you ****less so you don't pirate music. They could've fined him 1.2 billion for all they care.

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.

it might be different if canada had anything worth stealing....but I understand that if you didn't work hard to make something...one can't expect them to understand the value of something.

jwjw1 said,
it might be different if canada had anything worth stealing....but I understand that if you didn't work hard to make something...one can't expect them to understand the value of something.

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.

jwjw1 said,
it might be different if canada had anything worth stealing....

:| such ignorance.. some of the best music comes from canadian artists.

3dfxman said,
:| 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.

This is stupid because just cause you download the song doesnt turn it into a lost sale. alot of things i find you listen/watch it once to a few times then it gets boring or you lose interest then dont listen/watch it again. The biggest problem i have is with movies. If they want us to buy the film then make a good one and not some piece of crap thats been thrown together that you watch once and shelve it for the rest of your life.

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

This is a another case that proves the DMCA is an epic fail! Hypothetical:
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.

Not sure about the DMCA in it's entirety but does it not state at the beginning of every film or in the small print of every album, that it is illegal to rent or loan this item??? It does over here in the UK, even going as far as to say, it can't be used for public viewing (in cases of video footage) which covers, entertainment establishments, schools, hospitals etc etc. Schools for goodness sake what a load of crap!!!!

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.

No. Over here our films say that it's illegal to reproduce the film, in part or in its entirety, for profit or otherwise. The same type of warning is not put on CD's ( at least not that I've seen, but it has been about six years since I actually purchased a physical album ). Mostly what the DMCA did was state that it's illegal to circumvent copyright encryption. I know for a fact that it is not illegal to record the audio coming out of your speakers, although if you tried to sell it that would probably be a different story, and there are several ways to circumvent DRM legally using multiple audio streams, etc. People used to make mix tapes all the time, and nobody was chucking lawsuits around like nukes in a cold war.

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.

Absolutely agreeable, the grey area in digital ownership is ridiculous. If I buy a product it should be mine to utilise as I see fit. It's not going to change anything, hence my earlier rant above.

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

RIAA is an idiotic organization which tries to lobby labels' rights, not artists' (remember "work for hire" controversy?)

The RIAA is trash. This guy's an idiot, but I've gotta side with him. The punishment does not at all fit the crime.

-Spenser

The actual artists don't make much on their CDs/digital downloads. The recording studios do.
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.

Exactly, you see tickets sell out in a few hours after going on sale. And they're being bought by the same "idiots" (or "pirates" or "cheatscates") that are downloading music for free

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.

Escalade_GT said,
The actual artists don't make much on their CDs/digital downloads. The recording studios do.
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 :P


id like to see Metallica ask to their fans at a concert, how many mp3 they had from them! and then ask how many of those mp3 were bought. i can almoust imagine big ppl saying that they have mp3 from them... but for the bis part of how many were bought... BIG SILENCE. i'd love that!

Da_Lord said,
id like to see Metallica ask to their fans at a concert, how many mp3 they had from them! and then ask how many of those mp3 were bought. i can almoust imagine big ppl saying that they have mp3 from them... but for the bis part of how many were bought... BIG SILENCE. i'd love that!


welcome to the real world!

Yeah, but there is legal precedent for how much of a fine can be levied for each violation. The amount may be excessive to you or me, but legally it's within the bounds as sad as that is.

it's not just excessive it's cruel and unusual!!! If he had stolen the albums driectly from a retail outlet and got busted what would his fine had been then, a couple of grand and maybe a short jail sentence if it was repeated!!!

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!!!!

Whoah, whoah, whoah. Easy there chief. Angry much? The amount of the fine is not illegal according to the US constitution or any of it's many courts of law. As I stated before, a legal precedent has been established for a minimum to maximum value of fines that can be levied per offense. The reason that the fines go from $750 - $30k is the lost revenue that potentially resulted from the continual copy and redistribution of the content. The reason it goes up to $150k for willful acts is because of the much higher likelihood of those being sold for profit. There's nothing illegal about it.

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.

I Googled around about going bankrupt on a court judgement. It sounds like willful misconduct is a reason for the Judge to not let you go bankrupt on a judgement. With all the warnings this guy got he might be screwed.

It still doesn't change the fact the punishment is ridiculous. And the fact that the RIAA/MPAA are pure thugs who steal from everyone else.

No, the fines are not fair. Just as speeding on the high way is not worth a 1000 ticket in chicago.

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.

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.

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.

ccoltmanm said,
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

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....

nevann said,
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....


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.

Do you people (some) honestly believe that sharing a bunch of songs online is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars? Anywhere close? It's funny that they've convinced the "justice" system that those are reasonable fines.

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

First the artist has to become known, and to do that he/she has to have backing. Just putting your music on the internet isn't going to help you become famous. Why do you thank shows like "American Idol" are so popular with those who want to be big stars; it is simple because it gives them exposure.

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.

TRC said,
Oh don't start with the big brother nonsense. Why should his ISP cover for him? He committed a crime.


And why would ISPs share personal informations with anyone beside the police ?

Faks said,
If freedom is outlawed, only outlaws will have freedom .


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.

Klownicle said,
Sorry boys and girls, unlike the carebears stated, SHARING is not CARING.

Well sharing if caring if you have the right to share. :P

guy was an idiot and **** the riaa for being pieces of ****. more scum on the earth. 23k per song? lol. pathetic. They don't even know how many people downloaded the song from him. songs these days are no more than $1.29. The courts are bull****. Even if he admitted his guilt, they can't prove how many people downloaded from him or how much revenue they lost (they lost zero, because nothing was taken from them).

Well, at least it is good to warn for 1st time.If he was warned before then he deserve what happen to him.
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 !

The guy was warned many times. If he didn't step up his anyonoimity (like that's possible) he deserved it. I do agree that is too much money, and i'm sure they settled out of court something lower for him to pay.

No need to settle out of court if he can just file for bankruptcy and not have to pay anything in the end. Though he's in a bind for a good chunk of time until later.

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.

GP007 said,
No need to settle out of court if he can just file for bankruptcy and not have to pay anything in the end. Though he's in a bind for a good chunk of time until later.

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.

There was no settling out of court if the article is correct. It said the jury awarded $22,500 per violation. That means he has already been found guilty of the infractions. If I were him, I wouldn't even file bankruptcy. I would appeal the decision and seek lower damages. You'd be suprised how much time you can take up by filing inordanant amounts of legal paperwork.

The Teej said,
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.

wakers01 said,
There was no settling out of court if the article is correct. It said the jury awarded $22,500 per violation. That means he has already been found guilty of the infractions. If I were him, I wouldn't even file bankruptcy. I would appeal the decision and seek lower damages. You'd be suprised how much time you can take up by filing inordanant amounts of legal paperwork.

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

Dhalamar said,
No one forced him to to do the crime. It was his own fault he did it.

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.

still.... 675k is WAY out of line no matter how many songs he shared.

a few grand tops would be more reasonable.

the sad part is the JURY actually agreed to that amount? lol

cabron said,
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.

He was downloading songs, not drink driving.

God, some of you seem to think piracy is as bad as rape.

ThaCrip said,
still.... 675k is WAY out of line no matter how many songs he shared.

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.

nevann said,
He was downloading songs, not drink driving.

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.

Except that he didn't get sued for TAKING anything, he got sued for SHARING it. If he legitimately bought a CD, ripped it and shared the MP3's, he'd be just as liable. If he downloaded the songs and didn't share, he'd not be.
So explain to me again why that justifies such astronomically high charges.

I'd rather them not having their hands in our politicians pockets, and being able to demand ridiculous amounts of damages as a scare tactic. I'd rather then not thinking that their outdated business model is relevant in todays internet age and to embrace new technologies instead of fighting us every step of the way.

ccoltmanm said,
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.

ccoltmanm said,
You'd rather the RIAA let people illegally swap files?

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.

protocol7 said,
I'd also rather they gave their money to the artists they claim to represent rather than legal eagles.


What does that have to do with people downloading music illegaly, you are avoiding the issue.

ccuk said,
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.


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...

ccoltmanm said,

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 a lot of you are missing the point completely, it was not the RIAA, nor the judge in this case that decided on whether he was guilty or not. Albeit, it was a jury of his peers that brought about the guilty decision along with the amount he has to pay. It really doesn't matter whether he files for bankruptcy or not the RIAA has made another positive step toward their goal of hopefully curbing privacy of music. I think they know that they cannot stop the privacy, however, they now know that juries will back them and their goal of stopping music privacy.

Pam14160 said,
I think a lot of you are missing the point completely, it was not the RIAA, nor the judge in this case that decided on whether he was guilty or not. Albeit, it was a jury of his peers that brought about the guilty decision along with the amount he has to pay. It really doesn't matter whether he files for bankruptcy or not the RIAA has made another positive step toward their goal of hopefully curbing privacy of music. I think they know that they cannot stop the privacy, however, they now know that juries will back them and their goal of stopping music privacy.

Damn that music privacy! All the secrets

ccoltmanm said,
You'd rather the RIAA let people illegally swap files?


I'd rather see the RIAA spend all this money improving the products they sell to legit customers.

ccoltmanm said,


You too are avoiding the issue. If the RIAA did this more frequently, piracy would fall.


You are naive beyond understandment.

Pam14160 said,
I think a lot of you are missing the point completely, it was not the RIAA, nor the judge in this case that decided on whether he was guilty or not. Albeit, it was a jury of his peers that brought about the guilty decision along with the amount he has to pay. It really doesn't matter whether he files for bankruptcy or not the RIAA has made another positive step toward their goal of hopefully curbing privacy of music. I think they know that they cannot stop the privacy, however, they now know that juries will back them and their goal of stopping music privacy.


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.

LaP said,
You are naive beyond understandment.


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.

ccoltmanm said,
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 :P

Who's the naive one?

Pam14160 said,
I think a lot of you are missing the point completely, it was not the RIAA, nor the judge in this case that decided on whether he was guilty or not. Albeit, it was a jury of his peers that brought about the guilty decision along with the amount he has to pay.

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

babyHacker said,
People obey the speed limit usually don't they? Gee, I wonder why that is.

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.

babyHacker said,
People obey the speed limit usually don't they? Gee, I wonder why that is.

you stay under the speed limit to save your own life... you download music 'illegally' because you can

LaP said,
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.

So what you are saying is that EVERYBODY there obeys the speed limit? Wow, the police must get bored!

lunamonkey said,
What a pointless amount. He can't pay it, so why bother with it?

they want others to hear and fear

Even though it doesn't work. The bulk of the pirating comes from pros who make CDRs with the album art etc and sell it on the street for like $3 or w/e Going after the home user or student isn't doing jack about the real problem. Only ****ing off more people. Fear? More like Hate at the RIAA.

Nope not that at all, the record labels want someone held accountable for their losses, they know it's the big time pirates who are really responsible but the RIAA can't catch them, so instead they go after the "little guys". Yet ultimately it's the paying, law abiding citizens that get shafted the most because they are the ones left to deal with all the DRM and other crap...what a lovely society we live in eh?

Xerxes said,
Nope not that at all, the record labels want someone held accountable for their losses

What losses? Seriously.

Xerxes said,
Nope not that at all, the record labels want someone held accountable for their losses, they know it's the big time pirates who are really responsible but the RIAA can't catch them, so instead they go after the "little guys". Yet ultimately it's the paying, law abiding citizens that get shafted the most because they are the ones left to deal with all the DRM and other crap...what a lovely society we live in eh?

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.

They try to instill fear and terror in the people - just that it doesn't work.
The only thing they're accomplishing is making themselves even more loathed than they already are.