Musician Forum - Band Discussion Board - BandMix

http://mp3.about.com/b/2010/01/06/student-to-challenge-675000-illegal-music-download-fine.htm



Student to Challenge $675,000 Illegal Music Download Fine
Wednesday January 6, 2010

Boston PhD student, Joel Tenenbaum, who was found guilty of illegally downloading music in August 2009, is to challenge his $675,000 fine. The announcement which was made via his blog, details the new motion -- there's also a PDF file of the actual submitted document.

In essence, the new motion is asking for a re-trial and for the fine to be reduced. Joel Tenenbaum's attorney, Charles R. Nesson, is arguing that in the original case ruling by Massachusetts district judge, Nancy Gertner, the issue of 'fair use' was wrongly decided. It is also argued in the new motion that the jury's damage ward for the 30 illegally downloaded songs is grossly excessive; this equates to $22,500 per song.

It will be interesting to see if Judge Nancy Gertner deems the arguments worthy of a new trial. If not, Joel's only other argument reading the official document is to show that the $675,000 fine is grossly excessive and that it should be lowered to a 'reasonable amount' -- what ever that is?


.

What is interesting here is that the blog is very biased- he specifically leads the reader to believe the guy ONLY downloaded 22 songs, when a quick google search on the topic reveals:

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. ... 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 ... Harvard Law School professor Charles 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.

http://blogs.computerworld.com/riaa_win ... uit_090803

Always read between the lines, and ASSUME you are not being given all the facts. Nearly ALL reporters today put "spin" on their reports, especially editorials and blogs. You can easily see it if you are reading with the assumption that you are being led.

What he did was wrong whether it was 30 songs or 300 songs. Yes the fine seems stiff and maybe excessive but it should serve as a warning to all of those pirates out there who think they can trample artist's intellectual rights. I think maybe a fine of $10,000 and community service would be fair; he could travel around campuses and warn other students.

He was CONVICTED and FINED for 30 songs.... not 800.

Evidence of 800 songs is a side issue.

It is what he was CONVICTED of, and the fines for those downloads that matters.

But...


I think part of the bigger issue is "SHARING".

Two people have been convicted so far (out of MILLIONS of free downloaders) and those 2, both received outrageous fines. The woman that came before him, was granted an appeal, and they actually INCREASED her fines at the next court hearing, which she also lost!

I don't know if these two UPLOADED the files to share with others as well, or maybe they merely had P2P software that "SHARES" with other members on the network, because they had CHECKED the "share with others" button?

But I believe they are going after those who not only downloaded, but also SHARED the songs, which is then a distribution issue.

In any event, who knows where this will go. The people prosecuted are not wealthy, and will simply file bankruptcy and probably not pay a penny.

It is likely that the Major Labels are trying to scare the sh*t out of customers to make them fear free downloads, and maybe that is their main goal? Cause they aren't going to see any of the money from those excessive judgements.

It is also possible, that this backfires and people begin to turn away from the Major Labels... FOR GOOD!

We'll see how it all unfolds over the next years.

.

Going after those who download songs illegally and letting the people who run the sites go unpunished is like busting the guy coming out of the dopehouse with a dimebag while letting the pusher and his suppliers go free. Let's go after these people who run the websites too.

I agree with Jimmy on this one-

also, my last post was flawed. I found a better written article-

federal jury on Friday concluded that a 25-year-old college student must pay $675,000 — or $22,500 for each of the 30 songs he was found liable of infringing, Ben Sheffner reports from the courthouse.

After a week-long trial and nearly three hours of deliberations, the Massachusetts jury concluded that Joel Tenenbaum, a Boston University graduate student, should pay those damages to the Recording Industry Association of America for infringing its copyrights on Kazaa.

He was the nation’s second RIAA file sharing defendant to go before a jury. In the only other case that reached a verdict, a Minnesota woman was ordered to pay $1.92 million for infringing 24 songs on the file sharing network Kazaa. The judge in that case is weighing whether the verdict was unconstitutionally excessive.

The RIAA has issued about 30,000 lawsuits during its nearly 6-year-old litigation campaign against file sharers. Most have settled out of court for a few thousand dollars. The record labels have said they are ending the campaign, and are now lobbying ISPs in a bid to disconnect repeat music file sharers

Under the Copyright Act, Tenenbaum faced as much as $150,000 in damages per track.

He testified Thursday and admitted he downloaded and shared music online. He said he was “not surprised” by the verdict. If it stands, he said, “I will be filing for bankruptcy.”

In a telephone interview, he said the RIAA originally requested to settle the case in 2005 for $3,000.

“I think a lot of people have this idea, and me in particular, that the RIAA should not intimidate people into huge settlements,” he said.

He added that he would challenge U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner’s decision, on the eve of trial, to prohibit a so-called fair-use defense. That would have allowed him to lobby the jury that the Copyright Act permitted the sharing and downloading of copyrighted songs online without the labels’ permission.

“We’re not going to let a $675,000 verdict sit without fighting,” Tenenbaum said.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/0 ... er-675000/

What I'm seeing is a cocky little prick who got warned, kept doing it, with the cocky attitude, got caught, then tried to blame other family members (!!), went to trial, tried to use a defense that it was "okay to share" basically refusing to acknowledge copyright law itself, which the judge shot down (as a defense), and then stuck his nose up in the air when offered a settlement of $3000, under the assumption that he will "just claim bankruptcy" if he loses. He even has the audacity to try and paint RIAA as the "bad guys" .

Dumb prick doesn't even know bankruptcy law doesn't apply to government loans, taxes, and any court ordered judgments, including settlements. His decisions are ill-informed, and also show his lawyer isn't acting in the best interest of his client.

I can't be positive without some research, but I think you are wrong Kramer.

Bankruptcy DOES, I believe, offer some protection, even in this situation. It does not remove the penalties, but it may protect him from having property taken from him, like a home, and may other protections as well?

In any event, people generally don't go to prison for "debts".

But is this a CRIMINAL action, or somethine else?

You'd think if it was considered "theft" then jail could be a possibility, probatioon, etc...

I don't think he would have stated his intentions to file for bankruptcy, while having legal representation, if it could not benefit him in some way.

.

When you run a RED light and get caught you are caught. What is the problem?

.

But I do agree, that he should have probably settled out of court, especially if maybe the plaintiff agreed not to hold him liable for anything else (other songs) that occurred BEFORE the settlement was reached.

He could have then put it behind him, with no fear of reprisals.

He probably wanted to be the poster boy for FREE MUSIC, and get all the attention that goes with it, he thought, perhaps, making him a hero of sorts.

Didn't work out exactly like that did it?

Although, he could very well parlay his newfound fame into some kind of speaking career, or something else.

But that's a big burden to carry around.

May not affect him now, but they could confiscate his taxes, garnish his wages, it could cause him credit issues and make it difficult to buy a house, or get any kind of loan.

I'm sure there are any number of ways this judgement could make his life very difficult in the years to come.

.

chipfryer wrote:When you run a RED light and get caught you are caught. What is the problem?

The problem as "I" see it, is that the way computers and the internet work, is something that is difficult to grab a hold of in a legal sense.

It is supposed to be illegal to "COPY" any copyrighted work, including graphics and photos, and yet, when I go to "Guitar Center" website, for example, whose logo would be trademarked, and therefore illegal for me to copy, my computer DOWNLOADS or CREATES A COPY of that image, so that it will be displayed on MY COMPUTER MONITOR allowing me to see it. This is a little different than a radio or television transmission, because in those cases, there is no TANGIBLE copy made or stored of a LIVE television or radio broadcast. Whereas I can look in my Computer's memory and THERE will be the copyrighted object, right there, to easily be accessed and seen again and again if I chose.

Also, some of the restrictions of the DRM laws, are very limiting. I "can" make ONE SINGLE copy of a file, but only one. I cannot, for example, have simultaneous copies of the SAME SONG on my MP3 player, a CD for the car, and have them on my Laptop too. I have to cart them around, from place to place, even though I may be using ALL the copies only for personal use and am not distributing them to anyone, and not causing any fnancial loss to the labels.

I am willing to bet, that the hardliners here, like Jimmy and Kramer, probably do something similar as the scenario above, which is ILLEGAL and VIOLATES the DRM laws, and yet they are probably fine with their own illegal activities.

I think the DRM laws must go back to the drawing board.

.

He stole. Send him to jail.

But, on the other side of the coin - how many of us make copies & share them with band members to learn? I do. I don't feel badly about it either.

I also make copies LEGALLY for teaching purposes.

I can see this stuff getting out of hand & ppl being wrongfully prosecuted for legal copying & sharing. The legal perps will be ruined with legal fees, too. It's the American way, folks! Even when you're right, it can cost you!

philbymon wrote:He stole. Send him to jail.

And yet...

philbymon wrote: how many of us make copies & share them with band members to learn? I do.

We'll send you a postcard when you go up the river!

.

Ah, but since it's for TEACHING PURPOSES, by the letter of law, it's LEGAL!

See?

philbymon wrote:Ah, but since it's for TEACHING PURPOSES, by the letter of law, it's LEGAL!

See?

You may have a point. But I can't know. You may have to be an ACREDITED teaching facility, like a school registered with the government?

My point is only, that this is not as cut and dry as it seems.

I am willing to bet ALMOST EVERYONE who has purchased and used songs in digital format, have technically broken the law, even if they were unaware they were doing so.

Techies fought and fought, an online battle over the DRM when it was first reported, and for the very reasons we are discussing.

.

Eh...I've read the copyright law. It's long & boring & fulla weird stuff, but on this I think it's fairly cut & dry. I am a teacher. I pay taxes as a teacher. Therefore, I can use the sheet music, or the recordings, like any other teacher, whether I teach in a school or out of a store or at ppl's homes. If they have a problem with that, they can use my tax dollars to solve whatever problem they may have with it, as far as I'm concerned.

Now, on the band-sharing thing, it really isn't so cut & dry. There, it's being used for profit for the group, but not necessarilly for teaching purposes, since in some cases these musicians are more proficient than I, & there's really very little if anything I could teach them, save for the chord structure of a song they don't know. Some ppl just can't seem to figure stuff out well, though, & this is a very useful tool for bands.