var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
t0ph
August 1, 2009 6:41 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

If that picture is of the defendant and his crack legal team (which I believe it is), it is bothering me on a few levels. There is just a smugness to it that I think I hate.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Vanilla5
August 1, 2009 8:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@t0ph: I thought it was too, but:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Nicole
August 1, 2009 8:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Vanilla5: the jury and the defendants legal team aren't the same people.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ceriphim
August 2, 2009 5:13 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Nicole: Maybe he should look into trying that next trial, maybe the fine will be a little more reasonable...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Vanilla5
August 1, 2009 9:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Nicole: Aaaaand reading is fundamental. Ha. Thanks.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
snoop-blog
August 1, 2009 6:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
Alereon
August 2, 2009 12:34 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@snoop-blog: Why protect digital media at all? It's obvious that private downloading and sharing doesn't harm artists or companies, which is why comparing unauthorized downloading to theft is so ethically bankrupt. The reality is that the RIAA and associated groups are trying to sell an inferior product at a ridiculously inflated price, and are trying to criminalize consumers choosing not to accept their offer. In fact, the RIAA is fighting as hard as they can to make selling used CDs illegal, and it's already impossible to resell music you've purchased digitally.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
DefineStatutory
August 3, 2009 1:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
BWoodle
August 3, 2009 1:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DefineStatutory: I don't think anyone has proved that downloaded music would have otherwise been purchased. In fact, I think its pretty obvious that most of it would not have been purchased in any case.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Saeculorum
August 1, 2009 7:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@snoop-blog: Tenenbaum has paid the fair market value for the stolen music. It was determined by a court and a jury of his peers. Further, there's no reason community service shoud come to play when he has infringed on a private organization rather than the community itself.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Megalomania
August 1, 2009 11:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Saeculorum: You have to keep in mind that this is not for DOWNLOADING 30 songs, this for SHARING 30 songs. The \"market value\" would be the rights to distribute the music, not the songs themselves. There are flaws in that logic as well, but if you keep in mind that that is what the damages are based off of they will seem a (little) less insane.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
fantomesq
August 2, 2009 12:11 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Megalomania: He was charged with 30 infringements and statutory damages for each infringement. Market value does not play into that equation and because the damages are statutory they don't even have to prove damages... Statutory damages are how these verdicts reach such astronomical amounts.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Coles_Law
August 1, 2009 7:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
chiieddy
August 1, 2009 8:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Coles_Law: He was distributing the music. Depending on how many people downloaded the music he was sharing, it would have been more than $.99 per song.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Saites
August 2, 2009 1:37 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chiieddy: @Megalomania: So you both believe that he should pay for someone else's crime?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
chiieddy
August 2, 2009 11:53 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Alexander Saites: He was distributing music illegally. Exactly who else was committing the crime here of doing this?

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RvLeshrac
August 3, 2009 6:32 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.


@GuinevereRucker:


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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GuinevereRucker
August 2, 2009 12:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chiieddy: I agree with you. The law exists for a reason, namely to protect artists who deserve money for their work.

I don't like the RIAA much either, but if people would start obeying the law they might just go away.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
thetango
August 1, 2009 6:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"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.\"

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...

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
Radi0logy
August 1, 2009 10:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@thetango: I only feed bad for him because he was \"made an example of\", for doing something that myself and many, many, many others have done in the past. The level of the punishment is what makes it all the more ridiculous, $675,000 for sharing a few songs? I would be willing to bet that is more than some of the artists made for making the albums that he shared.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GuinevereRucker
August 2, 2009 12:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: This is the punishment that many, many others deserve for breaking the law. I support making an example of him, so that others will be scared into paying for their music.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Saites
August 2, 2009 1:42 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: \"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.\"

Wow. A fail at reading comprehension followed by an ignorant, hypocritical statement. Congratulations there.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Radi0logy
August 2, 2009 4:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Alexander Saites: Fail at reading comprehension why? Because I exaggerated to $50k per song instead of the \"more reasonable\" $22.5k?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
doctor_cos wants you to remain calm
August 1, 2009 6:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@thetango: ...because the money is going to the lawyers and the RIAA, not the artists who were \"hurt\" by this.
That's why you feel bad (maybe not for him, though).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SpruceStreetPhil - in a new Pine flavor
August 1, 2009 7:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@doctor_cos: He didn't get caught, he straight up admitted that he had lied and that he had done it. 'Getting caught' would mean that someone had found out that he had lied (which is what the entire case would have found out if it was carried all the way through.) In reality, there is no definite way of telling if he lied (guilty verdict or not) unless he admits it, so no he cannot have been caught.

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'.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
thetango
August 1, 2009 9:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SpruceStreetPhil: \"He didn't get caught\"

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
doctor_cos wants you to remain calm
August 1, 2009 6:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What a surprise that none of the money will go to the artists.
The RIAA (and MPAA) are theiving bastards who screw over the actual \"talent\" for their own gain.
Here (the RIAA) are the bastards who represent the companies who charge artists a 'handling' fee on DIGITAL DOWNLOADS that are sold.

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.

The execs and the lawyers...PAID.
The artists...well...(of course all they did was COMPOSE and PERFORM the stuff).
Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
thetango
August 1, 2009 6:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Good point. I've often wondering exactly why the RIAA doesn't have to give any of that money to the artists involved -- does anyone know why? Is it some sort of agreement the RIAA signs with the artists they represent -- and furthermore, why would any artist in this day and age sign an agreement signing over the digital distribution rights to the RIAA?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RecordStoreToughGuy_starcommandseries.com
August 1, 2009 7:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@thetango: The artists have already been paid as part of their contract, probably. And through royalties generated through CD Sales. Also, most artists don't hold copyright to their own works. The labels do. Usually.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SacraBos
August 3, 2009 3:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RecordStoreToughGuy: The artists get some up-front money, do all the composing, lyricing, performance - and get little else in return. Amazingly, all these \"royalties\" get eaten up in marketing, promotions, distributions, et. al. to the point where the artists actually make close to nothing, or told they still owe some back to the label. About the only money they do make is concert performances (and affiliated merchandising).

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
PeterFS
August 2, 2009 5:55 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RecordStoreToughGuy:
Sadly, only the artists who can afford good lawyers and accountants are likely to get paid the full amount they are legally owed by record companies. In the case of back catalog artists, the companies often rely on the fact that the royalties owed are too small an amount to make it worth pursuing for any legal team.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
AreYouConfusedYet?HowAboutNow?
August 1, 2009 6:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@doctor_cos: Don't forget about ASCAP.

Didn't they sue Girl Scouts for singing around a campfire?

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
LordofBacon
August 1, 2009 6:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's a tossup. I'm finding it hard to decide who I dislike more, the plaintiff or the defendant in this case.

Bleh.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
GuinevereRucker
August 2, 2009 12:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LordofBacon: The law isn't about who we like more, unfortunately :)

I agree, both annoy me... but one gives rise to the other.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
chiieddy
August 1, 2009 8:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LordofBacon: I agree. I don't condone lying or sharing music illegally, but the RIAA and their thug lawyers annoy me to no end.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
silver-bolt
August 1, 2009 6:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

He admitted to doing it, in court, on the stand. Jeez, that's like taking a joint and lighting up in front of a cop. He deserved the amount he has to pay.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
lordmorgul
August 1, 2009 9:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@silver-bolt: Whether he admitted it or not the amount he has to pay is absurd and completely out of line with the reality of the damage he may have caused to the recording industry profits. The law must be changed to reflect a reasonable cost to the industry caused by copyright infringement eventually. The fact is most of the people who downloaded songs from this guy's computer would not have purchased them whether they were downloadable or not. This needs to be reflected in the penalty, not a fabricated and unreasonable enormous fine based on who MIGHT have downloaded the files and why they did.

Assumed possible purchases by someone who was not a paying customer should not be considered a loss to the industry.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
AustinTXProgrammer
August 1, 2009 7:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@silver-bolt: Not even remotely the same. If you have a joint and a cop is nearby, you have the choice not to pull it out.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
eelmonger
August 1, 2009 8:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@AustinTXProgrammer: You also have the choice not to get up on the stand. That whole fifth amendment thing.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
silver-bolt
August 1, 2009 7:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@AustinTXProgrammer: You do know that just having a joint on you is illegal as well, right?

And so is deliberately lying in Discovery process/documents and depositions.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Gorphlog
August 1, 2009 7:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I dont feel sorry at all for this guy. He was told several times what he was doing is illegal and was caught several times and yet he continued even after being threatened with a lawsuit. he just stuck his thumb their eye. He then lies in his deposition. Im sorry but people complain about the RIAA going overboard with suing people and maybe they do, but they wouldnt be able to sue and collect ridiculous money if people would simply follow the law instead of living with a sense of entitlement that everything on the internet should be free and they should just be able to get whatever they want. I hope he DOES have to file for bankruptcy

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Mike8813
August 1, 2009 7:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
silver-bolt
August 1, 2009 8:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Mike8813: I;m sure most people on the net don't \"own\" Photoshop either.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ShariC
August 1, 2009 11:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@silver-bolt: As someone who does actually own Photoshop, good and proper (registered user and all), I think these are rather different issues. Granted both involve copying product, but I do believe that Adobe has less to lose when copying occurs. Most people who pay for Photoshop actually know how to use it and use it for commercial purposes. Most people who download it are performing basic manipulation with a tool that they could easily replace with a far more simplistic piece of software (for free). If anything, Adobe is losing sales on low end software like Photoshop Elements rather than Photoshop from piracy. The people who pirated it would never pay for it. That doesn't make stealing it ethical, but it does mean Adobe isn't losing revenue they might otherwise get from Photoshop sales.

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.)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Megalomania
August 1, 2009 11:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ShariC: Adobe does not lose much money to piracy because no one who's pirating their software would have paid for a license anyhow. Plus, an amateur who pirates CS4 and ends up using it professionally will be working for a company that will be paying for a license, and that keeps their products the choice of professionals. That doesn't make it right (I use GIMP), but if you want to start building a skillset before college (and the educational discount) then there's not much choice.

A similar argument can be made for downloading music, but it's a good deal weaker.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Johann
August 2, 2009 5:44 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Megalomania:

\"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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Mike8813
August 1, 2009 7:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Mike8813: Ahem. I should used quotation marks around the word \"own\". My mistake.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Nascar24Dude
August 1, 2009 7:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
AppleAlex
August 1, 2009 7:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Nascar24Dude: so do many other people. some just don't feel like buying music and I don't blame them. not if they're financially stable enough to buy 25 or so dollars worth of songs a month and still pay bills and live well and they keep doing it then I;m glad the RIAA steps in

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Alereon
August 2, 2009 12:27 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@AppleAlex: Please explain your belief that the RIAA should be owed compensation for downloading music? This concept has never been part of copyright law, nor is it supported by the majority of Americans. The intensive lobbying of congress by big business has created an anti-consumer environment so pervasive that the defendant in this case wasn't even allowed to present a defense (that personal media sharing is a fair use right under the law), because the judge said that if it succeeded, it would undermine the last decade of copyright actions. Which was the entire point. Can you imagine if the courts refused to allow civil rights lawsuits because they would undermine decades of discriminatory legislation?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Nascar24Dude
August 3, 2009 3:43 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Randal Milholland
August 1, 2009 7:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I loathe the RIAA and these moronic judgments as much as anyone else, but what did he expect? It's impossible to feel sympathy for this guy.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Alereon
August 2, 2009 12:14 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Randal Milholland: Presumably he expected to be allowed to present his fair use defense without the judge dismissing it out of hand?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Brontide
August 2, 2009 6:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Alereon: Because the Defendant's \"fair use\" was a sham argument that was not based in the law. He was asking for a new definition of \"fair use\" that was incompatible with common sense and the law.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
mythago
August 1, 2009 7:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm guessing that this is and was intended to be a test case appealed up the ladder.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
chapoec
August 1, 2009 7:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

He is not going to pay. And if I was in his shoes I would not pay a single cent to those bastards. But I don't use P2P site. Use direct upload sites like mediafire, megauploads, and rapidshare. The guy got caught and thought he could lie his way out of it. He deserved this judgment for trying to weasel his way out. Bet he wishes he paid the RIAA $3000 extortion fee.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
supercereal
August 1, 2009 8:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chapoec:

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.
Reply
\"user-pic\"
Corbin123
August 1, 2009 11:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@supercereal: Not really. If he doesn't pay he can get garnished (assuming he makes more than the garnishment floor of $1048/month, which I doubt he does as a student), or he can file bankruptcy and take the credit hit for 10 years or so. I'd say both of those options are better than paying off $675,000.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
veronykah
August 1, 2009 7:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Apparently he is a college student. With that info, I'm guessing the RIAA can get behind the student loan companies for his money.
They'll never see it.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
wrjohnston19283
August 1, 2009 7:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@veronykah:

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Psychosocial
August 1, 2009 7:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is just plain sickening. The RIAA is evil. They do keep winning these cases though.

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
MeanPeopleSuck
August 2, 2009 7:49 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Psychosocial: Sharing music is illegal, the guy was caught/warned a few times, but he continued to do it. He then lied while under oath. How is the RIAA evil in this case?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
faintandfuzzies
August 3, 2009 12:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MeanPeopleSuck:


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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Malice Blackhart
August 3, 2009 2:54 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MeanPeopleSuck:

Uh, because they assaulted him with a $675G bill for 30 songs.

Sounds pretty evil to me.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
AppleAlex
August 1, 2009 7:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Psychosocial: try putting yourself in the artists shoes first

Reply
\"user-pic\"
lordmorgul
August 1, 2009 9:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@AppleAlex: What does the artist have to do with anything here?? The artists are not being paid by these judgements. These judgements are not successful in reducing the amount of copyright infringement occurring. (look for statistics if you think otherwise, it is blatantly obvious this has zero correlation and certainly no causation)

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Malice Blackhart
August 1, 2009 8:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@AppleAlex:

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!

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
RecordStoreToughGuy_starcommandseries.com
August 1, 2009 7:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Meh, if we really want to stick it to the RIAA, we should just burn CDs and hand them out to friends, relatives, and complete strangers. They can't track it that way.

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/

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
boxjockey68
August 2, 2009 5:18 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RecordStoreToughGuy: Oh god yea, PAY for music?? Laughable. You couldn't force me to go out & buy a CD.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RecordStoreToughGuy_starcommandseries.com
August 2, 2009 7:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@boxjockey68: Yeah, I'd have forgone buying music at all, but I like it. A lot. So I figured mostly buying used would allow me to be a little self-righteous and still enjoy my music. ^_^

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
bravo369
August 1, 2009 7:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
8 replies
\"user-pic\"
Nascar24Dude
August 1, 2009 10:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bravo369
August 2, 2009 5:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
fantomesq
August 2, 2009 12:23 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Nascar24Dude: The RIAA based their damages on statutory damages - which could have been up to $30k per infringement - Up to $150k per infringement for willful infringement.

[en.wikipedia.org]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Nascar24Dude
August 2, 2009 12:27 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Corbin123
August 1, 2009 11:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Nascar24Dude: I agree, the damages are a travesty. Since your normal file-sharer isn't profiting from their infringement, they should only be charged the fair market value of the item at issue, multiplied by how many copies they allowed to be downloaded from them. This, of course, would mean that the RIAA would have to prove how many people downloaded a copy of the track from you, and of course they would never want to have to meet that burden.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ovalseven
August 1, 2009 10:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bravo369: For what it's worth. People aren't sued for downloading songs. They're sued for uploading and sharing them with other people.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
wrjohnston19283
August 1, 2009 8:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bravo369:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gaywolverine
August 1, 2009 8:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wrjohnston19283: Actually it would be in a civil matter. In a criminal matter there is a different set of circumstances. In fact, consider if somebody takes a torch to your car. If you sue them, you can only sue for the value of what the car was worth at that time. Not replacement, not what you paid for it, not what you owe on it. The RIAA has a \"special\" law for their products. By the way, this guy did not PROFIT from what he did. He shared with others. The RIAA wanted to stop tape recorders, DVRs. and VCR's. These morons spend so much time worrying about this instead of making a business model that will work in todays environment. They are failing as an industry trade group because the music business is basically dead.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
AppleAlex
August 1, 2009 7:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bravo369: I guess they really want to scare the crap out of those who plan to continue doing so. I have a list of songs I ant to get but I'm going to wait until I get another iTunes card before getting them. after all if I downloaded the songs and saved $25, it could cost me $675,000 later

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
InThrees
August 1, 2009 7:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The RIAA is the most effective publicity machine of any industry, ever.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
I Love New Jersey
August 1, 2009 7:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@InThrees: You forgot about the corrupt guy from Chicago who got elected president.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
JulesNoctambule
August 1, 2009 8:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@I Love New Jersey: Is this a Consumerist Bingo square yet? Because it should be.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
catastrophegirl chooses not to fly
August 1, 2009 10:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@JulesNoctambule: the last comment or the RIAA situation? because the last comment could be put under \"obama's fault\" [don't worry, there's a \"bush's fault\" also]

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
H3ion
August 1, 2009 7:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Well, this shows that Harvard lawyers put their briefs on one leg at a time.

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?

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
fantomesq
August 2, 2009 12:26 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@H3ion: These were not punitive damages but statutory damages, so limitations on punitive damages will have no effect. the argument can still be made on appeal that they are excessive.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
H3ion
August 2, 2009 1:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@fantomesq: I understand that the damages were statutory but some of the legal press is reporting a possible theory on appeal that the damages are disproportionate and intend to rely on SCOTUS decisions regarding punitive damages to make the case. I don't know if it will work but it's not an embarrassing argument to make.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
fantomesq
August 2, 2009 1:24 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@H3ion: I agree. The degree to which the statutory damages are seriously disproportionate to any possible actual damages is probably the most interesting claim on appeal in this case. I would love to see a ruling limiting excessive statutory damages such as we have seen for punitive damages.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gaywolverine
August 1, 2009 8:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@H3ion: I would hire a PhD with a bankruptcy in a split second. Bankruptcy is not a predictor of what a persons work ability is. His ability to get through a PhD program tells me far more about him.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
silver-bolt
August 1, 2009 8:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gaywolverine: Yet alot of companies run credit checks before employment and make decisions based on that. The military does this for security clearances, because how a person manages their private funds/bills directly connects to how susceptible they might be to sell state secrets. Poor/Bad with Bills = Willing to break the law to pay them off.

Additionally, they would also know he broke the law and \"\"stole\"\" music.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gaywolverine
August 4, 2009 9:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@silver-bolt: Which is another form of discrimination in the market place. If a person has a bankruptcy it does not mean they are bad with bills. Most personal bankruptcies in the United States are MEDICALLY induced. You try to pay the medical bill to survive and then decisions need to be made as to what is important. I would point out Donald Trump has been in bankruptcy and seems to have done just fine for himself. A PhD student from Harvard is not a Johnson County Junior College student. I can assure you, he will be hired.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
dark_15
August 1, 2009 7:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The thing I don't quite understand is why the jury awarded the RIAA anything? I am quite aware that MediaSentry was able to download the songs which indicates he was simply making them available, but I fail to see how they proved he actually distributed the songs as well as how many times it was distributed.

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?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
fantomesq
August 2, 2009 1:30 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dark_15: The issue of infringement was taken away from the jury by the judge so the RIAA never had to show that the songs had ever been downloaded or how many times they had been. The jury was only left with the question of damages. I also question how a reasonable jury could return such verdict but keep in mind that civil juries have much lower burdens of proof and do not require unanimous juries so...

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
I Love New Jersey
August 1, 2009 7:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wonder how much the RIAA paid the judge?

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
PeterFS
August 2, 2009 6:03 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@I Love New Jersey:
Why pay the judge when the defendant makes the case open and shut?

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
silver-bolt
August 1, 2009 8:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@I Love New Jersey: The judge hooked up the kid with a good lawyer team, but really can't blatantly ignore the kid lying, and admitting both lying and committing the crime. Regardless of if she was paid by the RIAA (She doesn't declare guilt or not), her hands where tied by the kids actions.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Shoelace
August 1, 2009 8:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@I Love New Jersey: And the jury.

Not that I'm defending Tenenbaum...but that is one large fine.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
dallasmay
August 1, 2009 8:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So, the moral of the story:

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.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
P=mv
August 1, 2009 8:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@undefined: @doctor_cos: The money flow may be working as intended, but the artists have not yet been paid royalties on work that is shared and not purchased. I don't see how it is right that the artists don't get their chunk of the awards being given in these lawsuits.

*resists sarcasm*

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
dragonfire81
August 1, 2009 9:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@hpeacock: They are the recording INDUSTRY association of america, not the recording artists association. They represent business labels and other industry entities.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
doctor_cos wants you to remain calm
August 1, 2009 11:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dragonfire81: I'm not sure that the INDUSTRY owns the music here. But we miss the point with that discussion.
The artists are ultimately the ones we are told are \"hurt\" by this kind of thing (who feels sorry for the record companies?). And they're not getting a penny.

Look at it this way...would you argue that a book publisher \"owns\" a book that you wrote?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
snowburnt
August 2, 2009 8:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@doctor_cos: RIAA represents the people that pay the artists, the people are paying the artists because they \"bought\" the rights to the artists' production...ergo the RIAA is representing the people that own the music. I don't agree with it: it's a behemoth that thinks creativity can be plugged into a computer or created on reality TV. Its a failed system but unfortunately the most effective one at getting music widely distributed.

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%.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
rickn99
August 1, 2009 8:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.....

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
gaywolverine
August 1, 2009 8:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Before anybody thinks this will matter, it is a judgement. The collecting of that judgement will NEVER happen. They have sent the kid to bankruptcy court and they will never see dime one. The major problem the RIAA has is the people they sue don't have money to collect on these. Any kid in their 20's just files an easy bk 7 and guess what, it goes away. The RIAA paid lawyers and sepnt their industry money to see NO RETURN

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
fantomesq
August 2, 2009 12:27 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gaywolverine: No fiscal return. They are seeing a mountain of publicity for their claim... you couldn't buy that.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dbissig
August 2, 2009 8:11 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@fantomesq: yes, but BAD publicity. Remember Napster? Oh man, I bought so much music after hearing it first on Napster. But then the response of the RIAA: \"Instead of buying out this service and converting it into a pleasant for-profit [think iTunes], or maybe even just living with it (since it eventually means better sales), we'll smash it! Take that, people who like music!\" I decided never to buy another product from a company represented by the RIAA. After all, how could any company so committed to destroying a way for people to discover (and buy) more of their product actually produce anything worthwhile? After ~7 years, I might otherwise have softened my stance, but the RIAA keeps reminding me not to purchase with these lawsuits.
Also, because of these lawsuits, a moral question arises (which I will address with the most hyperbolic analogy I can think of): Would you buy cookies at a Nazi bake sale? Yeah, cookies are good, and it's generally wrong to steal cookies (or more appropriately, to take a photo of the pattern of sprinkles on the cookie and then show it to your friends), but... c'mon.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
dbshaw
August 1, 2009 8:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

On another note, can't this guy raise the 675k by suing Media Sentry for violation of his privacy? Hacking his network? It'd be easy to show specific harm, just show them the records for this case.

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.

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
prodpoke
August 1, 2009 8:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

p2p's suck. :) that's my input.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Musician78
August 1, 2009 9:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
zacox
August 1, 2009 9:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

When, oh when will somebody apply RICO to the RIAA?

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Papa Midnight
August 1, 2009 9:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I wouldn't have to pay 1% of that for stealing a CD from a retail store.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
lordmorgul
August 1, 2009 9:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Papa Midnight: No you wouldn't, even if were armed robbery, which is a very good comparison to make here. It is just amazing that this continues and juries fine for amounts like this. Do those on the jury have no brain of their own?

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
corinthos
August 1, 2009 9:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
zacox
August 1, 2009 11:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@corinthos: Funny. A buddy of mine is a cop, and he has a sizable pension coming to him when he retires. Unfortunately, his 2nd wife took it in the divorce. So, at 71 years old, he continues to be a desk cop just so she can't get her hands on it. He hopes she dies before he does!

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Duckula22
August 1, 2009 9:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I would just not pay.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
ZoeSchizzel
August 1, 2009 10:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.)

Reply
","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
bunnymare
August 1, 2009 11:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm so glad the RIAA keeps pursuing these ridiculous lawsuits. If they didn't, my determination never to buy another CD again would wane so quickly. Every so often I get tempted, but this will keep me from participating in that market for another few months. I think I have bought ONE in 2 years.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Pandemic1444
August 1, 2009 11:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I dunno where they get off with these ridiculous verdicts in this country. Not only are both of those ridiculous amounts but one was a million dollars higher with only six more songs! That alone should cause people to question our judiciary system.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
fantomesq
August 2, 2009 12:45 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Pandemic1444: Not the judicial system, the laws. Call on Congress to abolish or massively limit statutory damages on infringement cases.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
anduin
August 2, 2009 12:42 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I say sell all your stuff and move to Canada asap

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
dvdchris
August 2, 2009 3:48 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I want to say what I think should be done to the RIAA, but I think it would be interpreted as terrorism

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
rhys1882
August 2, 2009 6:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

In my experience, law professors make horrible attorneys. They are more concerned about theoretical issues that have no real practical value in the courtroom than actually litigated the case properly. Juries do not care about theoretical discussions about what copyright policy should be or the propriety of the RIAA's lawsuits. Any experience litigator knows that juries are extremely fixated on following the express rules of law, and they almost never deviate from that. The guy WILLFULLY violated copyright law, pure and simple. No fancy legal theorizing was going to get him out of that.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Brontide
August 2, 2009 7:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@rhys1882: Yep, Joel was an jerk who hired a crack legal team ( aka, the prof and his students ). He lied in his depositions, they bungled almost every step of the discovery, they missed the window for expert witnesses, and then he admitted in open court to the issues he was charged with.

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.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
ZukeZuke
August 2, 2009 11:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

And by \"crack team\", I assume you meant they were ON crack? Because only dopers would allow their client to incriminate themselves so...

Not exactly the poster children for Harvard Law... doh.

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
edrebber
August 4, 2009 5:53 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
JGKojak
August 4, 2009 6:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
cartagenero
August 4, 2009 7:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Never admit to anything period!!!!

Reply
","");