The trial was an almost entirely one-sided affair. Plaintiffs built their case with forensic evidence collected by MediaSentry, which showed that he was sharing over 800 songs from his computer on August 10, 2004. A subsequent examination of his computer showed that Tenenbaum had used a variety of different peer-to-peer programs, from Napster to KaZaA to AudioGalaxy to iMesh, to obtain music for free, starting in 1999. And he continued to infringe, even after his father warned him in 2002 that he would get sued, even after he received a harshly-worded letter from the plaintiffs' law firm in 2005, even after he was sued in 2007, and all the way through part of 2008.
And when he took the stand on Thursday, Tenenbaum admitted it all, including the fact that he had "lied" in his written discovery responses and at his first deposition in September 2008.
Tenenbaum's admissions were so clear-cut, and so damning, that Judge Gertner-who had recruited Nesson to represent the formerly lawyer-less 25-year-old-took the basic issue of infringement away from the jury, determining that no reasonable jury could find for Tenenbaum on that issue. The jury of five men and five women, all white and all from the Boston suburbs, were left only to determine the issue of willfulness and damages.
Tenenbaum's lawyer, Charles Nesson, the poker proselytizing co-founder of Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet & Society, described the verdict as "a bankrupting award." None of the money will go to the artists whose work Tenenbaum shared.
This is the second time a file sharer has lost their case against the RIAA. Last month a Minnesota jury ruled that Jammie Thomas-Rasset owed $1.92 million for sharing 24 songs. Nesson has made murmurs about challenging the constitutionality of the awards, a fight we'd love to see even though the RIAA stopped suing individual file sharers back in December.
Oy Tenenbaum! RIAA wins $675,000, or $22,500 per song [Ars Technica]
PREVIOUSLY: Good Day For Bad Guys: Court Says 'Pirate' Jammie Thomas-Rasset Must Pay RIAA $1.92 Mill
RIAA Pockets Filesharing Settlement Money, Doesn't Pay Artists Whose Copyrights Were Infringed
RIAA To Stop Suing File Sharers
This is crap and everyone knows its crap.
I do agree, though, that the legal tactic I'd like a crack team to try is to challenge the RIAAs right to actually sue.
Find an artist whose work was being "illegally" shared, and have them SUE the RIAA for their portion of the damages, challenging the right for the RIAA to sue based on whatever contract they signed. Betcha the artist would win.
]]>If he got caught shoplifting the CDs he could have a criminal record and find it difficult to find a job. No criminal record here, but he will have a bankruptcy on his credit history which could still make it difficult to find a job.
]]>Kelly Clarkson was interviewed on a local station, shortly after her first few million albums sold - and she hadn't seen dime in royalties.
Don't feel too bad for the RIAA, the artists wouldn't have seen any of it even if he paid in cash in the courtroom. The RIAA is making money from both ends - from the lawsuits (and undocumented amount from the thousands of demand letters) and from the record labels themselves. It's not about the artists at all.
]]>@Alereon:
"It's obvious that private downloading and sharing doesn't harm artists or companies"
Really? So if you download something for free that you would have otherwise had to pay for to have, and if you have to pay for it the original artist makes money, how exactly does stealing it not hurt anyone?
Try and spin it any way you'd like, stealing is stealing, no matter how justified you feel in doing so.
]]>Because the RIAA doesn't represent the music industry like they claim to. They're lawyers that are after a fast buck. Hardly any of the money goes directly the the arists. The RIAA are thieves themself.
]]>@chiieddy:
He wasn't distributing them. Distribution would imply some sort of push service, sale, or that he was sending out a material good. He simply had them on his computer located in a directory used by a file-sharing application. By that definition, you're "distributing" cable simply by placing your TV where it can be seen through a window.
The laws *DON'T* protect artists. *ANY* artists. The artists get *none* of the money from the settlement. They rarely even have the slightest bit of input. The record companies have engineered copyright in a manner that allows them to functionally steal all of the rights to the works created by the same artists they claim are "protected" by the copyright laws.
]]>@Alereon:
So, it's not illegal to download/receive infringed copyright materials? It's only illegal to distribute? Not to be argumentative, but could you cite the law code on that ( or at least show that it's only illegal to distribute )? Because, I've seen several commercials that say downloading copyprotected stuff is stealing.
Uh, because they assaulted him with a $675G bill for 30 songs.
Sounds pretty evil to me.
]]>Not exactly the poster children for Harvard Law... doh.
]]>You'll say what can be more widespread than the internet? Just because everyone can get to the internet doesn't mean that they know where to look. Even if you knew where to look it doesn't mean they'll find what they're looking for. RIAA and their ilk own the marketing stream, they own the distribution, they own it all. No, they're not the only ones but they're very good at what they do, even if they final product is only representative of 1% of the talent in the world, and that 1% isn't even in the top 20%.
]]>Only in fairyland does the verdict go any other way. Honestly I was amazed that he made out under 1m.
Part of the problem is that too many people listen to Ray Beckerman and his theories as well with no background to caselaw they don't know any better. The only way to prevent these cases going forward is either a longshot case in Albany about the RIAA's "Doe" litigation tactics or from congress. Anything else is really "pissing in the wind" as the courts can not just invalidate copyright statute because some Gen Y with an entitlement complex got caught with his pants down sharing music illegally.
]]>@Nascar24Dude: that's what i meant. Since the song is 99 cents and a cd is 12.99 then it should be 5x or 10x that price but then that wouldn't cover the cost of litigation which is why the RIAA bought..er, i mean...lobbied politicians to set such high penalties. to me, sharing 30 songs and then being forced to pay $250 or even $1000 fine after trial makes sense...not $675,000.
]]>I agree, both annoy me... but one gives rise to the other.
]]>I don't like the RIAA much either, but if people would start obeying the law they might just go away.
]]>He admitted he was distributing 30 songs illegally.
Licensing to distribute these songs is going to cost him $22,500 per. If he hadn't lied in court (pre-hearing depositions), he probably could have paid less.
No matter how I dislike the RIAA's tactics, file sharing of licensed music IS ILLEGAL. Downloading licensed music is also ILLEGAL.
If I don't like you or your tactics on this site, does it make it legal for me to break into your home and steal your computer? No. The legal system doesn't work like that and it shouldn't. Right now, the law supports the RIAA. If we don't like that, we should try to initiate legislation to eliminate the RIAA from having the right to sue.
In all honesty, this crack team of lawyers took the wrong tact and their client is paying.
The correct legal tactic would be to say the RIAA doesn't have legitimate right to sue. THEY aren't being directly hurt. The artists effected should sue.
Until we eliminate the middle-man, the artists aren't going to see their fair share of either these cases, settlements or their rightful royalties.
]]>You can call the RIAA darned near anything you want and I'll agree with you. They are perfect representatives of nearly everything wrong with the music industry and its chilling effect on creativity. The fact remains, however, that Joel Tenenbaum was so flagrantly in violation of law, unjust it may be, that it'd be difficult to raise enough money to pay the judge NOT to find against him.
The RIAA is bad enough without Tenenbaum making it easy for them to pat themselves on the back. Frankly, I'm almost half as pissed at him as I routinely am at them.
]]>Of course, given that the average artist sees somewhere in the neighborhood of fifty cents for each CD sold (versus the $11 or so the major labels charge record stores wholesale), any portion of this settlement based on their royalty rate is going to be a pittance anyway. (I should add here that indie labels are just as capable as majors of screwing over artists. They just tend less often to do it with math. Oh, and I'll admit that $11 figure may have changed. I haven't worked in a record store for a few years.)
I think the argument here shouldn't be so much whether the artists will be paid (which, since this is in theory a lawsuit over revenue lost through piracy, they should). It's more about the plaintiff being up front about who is being hurt by the piracy. The RIAA consistently claims to be defending the artists in these cases, and no matter where one's sympathy lies, that's at best disingenuous. Their clients are more often guilty of actively withholding income from artists than the listening public.
]]>"Adobe does not lose much money to piracy because no one who's pirating their software would have paid for a license anyhow."
The full version of Photoshop may sound expensive (although I don't believe it's as expensive as it used to be) but you can buy Photoshop Elements for a bit over $50 from Amazon, and it seems to have pretty much all the features I'd ever need.
If someone actually intend to use the program (and isn't just downloading it from a torrent "because it's free") and they have any source of income at all, I bet a lot of these amateurs without educational discounts could save up and eventually purchase a copy of Elements. It costs less than many video games.
]]>No, he's paying for his own actions.
]]>Wow. A fail at reading comprehension followed by an ignorant, hypocritical statement. Congratulations there.
]]>Note that the RIAA will already be taking very little after legal fees and as you note this will never be paid subject to a bankruptcy anyway.
]]>@fantomesq:
I'm well aware of the statutory damages. I'm just saying what I think they should be ( and what we, as consumers, should lobby our congress men/women for ).
And, in response to Corbin123: I don't think it should just be face value X number of downloads. I think that number should be multiplied by 2 or 3, to discourage the practice ( but not be overly excessive ). Multipy by 5 if sold for profit.
A similar argument can be made for downloading music, but it's a good deal weaker.
]]>For a "crack team" of legal eagles, these clowns completely missed the invalidating factor in these lawsuits, that the plaintiffs can not prove that anyone (or, anyone other than they or their authorized agents) downloaded the music from the defendant. Of course, you will never find a jury that is technologically minded enough to understand that or appreciate the nuance, but give it 30 years and we'll have gotten in some fresh blood.
]]>Look at it this way...would you argue that a book publisher "owns" a book that you wrote?
]]>With songs, and I in no way support the RIAA's actions, it's not the case of copying one thing instead of using another. There's a more direct relationship between potential revenue lost and downloading. Since the "product" involved is within the means of most people to buy, they probably can and would buy it if file sharing didn't allow them to get it for free.
(This is just a logical consideration of the circumstances and the basic question of whether potential revenue is lost, not an ethical or legal debate on the issue.)
]]>I think anyone sane could take a step back and reasonably see that, at worst, he should be forced to pay the sticker price for the cd's, a couple of times over. Maybe $500, maybe $1000. The prosecution probably loaded the jury with ignorant hicks so that when they claimed "We were hurt! We must get $50,000 per song!!!", they stared back with blank gazes and mouths half full of teeth and nodded along. All the while wondering what the Internet was and how they could use it to listen to the newest Brooks & Dunn CD themselves so they didn't need to get a jump for their '84 F-150 and stand in line with the colored folks at Wal-Mart.
To say that the American judicial system is hopeless broken would be an understatement, and this case only gives further justification.
]]>@bravo369:
I agree with wrjohnston19283. The penalty should be more than the price of the item. But, not that much more. To me, for low price items like this, he should have to pay RIAA 3x the price of the item ( 5x his price if he sold it for profit ). But, even then, that's less than a few thousand dollars for all 300 songs. Not as much as they got here, but enough to deter people.
Oh, and as to being a civil matter, I think copyright infringement allows for punative damages, in addition to the cost of the infringement.
]]>@bravo369: For what it's worth. People aren't sued for downloading songs. They're sued for uploading and sharing them with other people.
]]>Really, the record industry is going to have to come to terms with file sharing eventually. They can't possibly sue everyone, and even with the two day headlines this will get, almost every single person under the age of 30 (and a substantial number over) will still be trading files.
They never consider that file sharing is a BOON to independent artists and lower tier artists. Because their conglomerate radio stations play only what they are paid to play, independent music is priced out of the market, file swapping is generally the only way our music is heard, and being HEARD is essentially the only way to make money off our music. (Not to say that all independent music is good. A lot of it is terrible, but so is a lot of what gets airply. But it should have a fair shake at our airwaves.)
]]>Actually, what I meant was that he got caught sharing files, not caught in a lie on the stand (although we don't know if he openly admitted his deception or if he was being cross-examined).
P.
]]>What would happen if he would continue to share even after the judgement and get caught again?
I know of people who have garnishments who only work so many hours a week to make sure they don't make enough to get it taken from their checks. I used to work in HR so had a couple employees tell me thats why they did it.
Artists are increasingly speaking against the absurdity of these judgements and they will continue to do so. Think it through! Would you ever again pay for music from an artist that tried to fine you such an absurd amount for 30 songs? No, you wouldn't.
Short term gains for the RIAA and music labels will crush the future of the music industry until artists wake up and break contract with these poorly managed short sighted organizations.
]]>The RIAA is representing the companies that pay the artists. It's like if I am paying you to deliver your product to me to resell but the guy down the street is giving it away for free. You get your money when I buy your product to resell, but if I go after the guy for illegally giving it away for free and win, I should be the one who gets compensated because I was losing the money in the first place.
]]>Assumed possible purchases by someone who was not a paying customer should not be considered a loss to the industry.
]]>Wow. Just. Wow.
I wouldn't pay either. No way in hell. And since the artist doesn't even get any of the money, that is even less incentive to pay.
I have downloaded music lots of times. It has helped me to discover far more artists that I would hear on the radio. But if I like the music, I buy the cd. I am a collector and like the entire package (liner notes, packaging, etc).
But... Being a musician... if people were sharing my music and I wasn't getting paid for it... Honestly... I would be flattered that people wanted to hear my music. No lawsuits involved. If I was on a label who wanted to sue someone for downloading my music, I would do whatever was in my power to discourage it. Including fulfilling the rest of my contract with substandard music. Because I am like that. And record companies are cheats like nobody's business.
]]>Additionally, they would also know he broke the law and ""stole"" music.
]]>Not much on reading, Are ya Apple?
Quote "None of the money will go to the artists..."
Yeah. I'll put myself in their shoes.
Oh dang it. Now I'm even MORE angry!
]]>The jury of five men and five women, all white and all from the Boston suburbs, were left only to determine the issue of willfulness and damages.
That last guy on the right though? Hm. Maybe they mis-printed in the article.
]]>If we accept that what the defendant was doing illegal, I wonder how its possible to defend Media Sentry's intrusion onto this guys pc.
]]>And if I was in his shoes I would not pay a single cent to those bastards.With a judgement against you, the choice is not really yours to make. You either pay, or have far worse things happen to you.]]>
Why should the penalty be the cost of the item? Do you think the penalty for stealing a TV should be the cost of a TV? What's to prevent people from stealing TVs vs buying them? If I steal a TV and get caught, you say the penalty should be the $500 cost of the TV, but if I don't get caught, I get it for free?? Why would I ever legally buy something if the punishment for stealing is only to pay for it?
Now, I understand that many people find the fine excessive, but so many people simply feel that the fine should be "to pay for what he stole" I'm concerned that society no longer understands that punishments are meant to be deterrents for crimes.
]]>That's the strategy advocvated by the crack Harvard legal team? Lie in your deposition, then admit your guilt in open court?
Hope it was pro bono.....
]]>*resists sarcasm*
]]>If you are going to illegally share copyrighted works, don't be a F.N. Retard about it. When you're caught. Stop. Don't keep giving them more and more evidence against you for the next 7 years.
]]>Not that I'm defending Tenenbaum...but that is one large fine.
]]>Why not have a P2P application list how many times a full song has been uploaded to peers (excluding MediaSentry/other investigatory bodies)? Furthermore, why not have the application never upload a full song to a peer?
The thought behind this is to show that while you do have the songs and while you do have them in a shared folder, there is a written and provable record that your system did not distribute a full song.
Wouldn't a system like that prevent the RIAA from being litigious?
]]>Tennebaum was lucky as hell that the judge didn't impose sanctions (or direct a perjury investigation) for lying on his deposition (which is under oath).
Practically, this is not going to be paid. It may go up on appeal, especially on the punitive nature of the damages since the Supreme Court has said that punitive damages have some limits, but it will ultimately be discharged in a bankruptcy proceeding. Now, would you hire a PhD graduate who already has a bankruptcy on his record?
]]>I'm sure the RIAA didn't let this get to trial for the money. Now they have a precedent (or two actually, there was another trial a month or so back that they won as well). They are two for two in this. The also have gotten a TON of free PR that if you get caught sharing music, it's going to hurt you in the wallet - A LOT.
]]>@Saeculorum: "Fair market value" is the cost the items sell for on the open market-probably $0.99 in this case. The price he paid was largely punative.
]]>the judgement is excessive. $675,000 for downloading songs? people commit real crimes and get penalties less than that. another article i read said RIAA only went after 30 of 300 songs rather than waste time proving they own all of them. but if they did, are you telling me the judgement would have been for millions aginst this guy? i would hope everyone sees that as excessive. These penalties are like 300x what the song is worth which is an absolute joke. since the song can be downloaded for $.99 or a cd for $12.99, then the penalty should be based off that.
so that's my rant. RIAA needs to find a new business model because they are dead and are just trying to hang on to status quo
]]>I haven't paid full price for a new CD ever since Napster went under. I either bought it used, or got my discount at the record store. Since I quit the record store, I stick to used and iTunes, although I don't think the latter choice is really sticking it to the man, in this case. :o/
]]>This is just plain sickening. The RIAA is evil. They do keep winning these cases though.
]]>Of course, this is pure speculation on my part. If anyone has a better understanding of exactly how money flows in the recording industry, please correct me.
]]>I personally don't condone his actions but I personally think these verdicts are along the same lines as allowing a murder victim's second cousin's brother-in-law's attorney be about to murder the murderer.
So if I have to pick a side, I'll pick thief's, not the legal racketeers'.
]]>@Mike8813: Ahem. I should used quotation marks around the word "own". My mistake.
]]>@Gorphlog: Entitlement... you hit the nail on the head. I sometimes feel that I'm the only person on the internet who doesn't own Photoshop.
]]>And so is deliberately lying in Discovery process/documents and depositions.
]]>While 675 grand is a little excessive in my opinion, this guy deserved at least some judgment against him. After all, he was warned, in one way or another, at least 3 times that this could get him in trouble. And, then, to top it off, he ADMITTED it all in open court. If he's going to fight it in court, he at least needs to get his defense right.
]]>When on the stand you can answer the question, or commit perjury. They knew he did it, not admitting such would have been more akin to lighting up in front of a cop.
His lawyers were putting forth a fair use defense, to challenge the law. They weren't disputing what he did, but the legality. The judge shut them down before they even had a chance to make the case.
]]>Bleh.
]]>Didn't they sue Girl Scouts for singing around a campfire?
]]>How does anyone with any brains award them $22.5K per song?
There is a special place in Hell for these folks. Right next to the lawyers. Oh, and before you rush to their defense...
...there isn't actually that much money available after subtracting legal fees.
Having been involved in litigation (my real estate case has gone on for two years now), I can tell you that there is NOTHING more irritating to a jurist than someone who openly lies in court or under oath.
If Tenenbaum had simply admitted his guilt, the fine would have been much less severe -- I've read cases where the RIAA is willing to settle for $4000? Tenenbaum decided to go the other way, LIE, and then he got caught.
Ultimately I'm not sure why I'm supposed to feel bad for him as many on the internet do...
]]>Rediculous. Personally it's really hard to protect digital media. There is no winning solution. Other than paying fair market value of stolen music and some community service.
]]>