$675k Verdict Against File Sharing Student Upheld

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
And this kid thought paying back his student loans was going to be hard. :eek:

A $675,000 verdict against a former Boston University student who illegally downloaded and shared songs on the Internet has been upheld. A jury ordered Providence, R.I., resident Joel Tenenbaum to pay $22,500 for each of 30 songs after the Recording Industry Association of America sued him on behalf of four record labels.
Click to expand...
 
As someone who supports intellectual property rights, I gotta say this is absurd.

We need judges who have spent most their lives after computers were invented.

Insane.
 
For 30 songs... that is insane for a "personal" judgement.

It seems like the penalties were determined more for business deterrence.

If the kid was running a file sharing website or something sure... but torrenting 30 songs is about as easy as forgetting to wear your seatbelt which doesn't have a 650k fine.
 
This is outrageous. 22k for a fucking song, man. I wish all responsible for this verdict slow and painful death. Fucking scumbags.
 
looks like he's a perfect candidate for bankruptcy.
he might as well get as many credit cards as he can, max them out, and sell the products for some hard cash to hide. after his house get's 'robbed' of course
I feel bad for the guy, but come on JUDGE, have you never heard of lex talionis aka "the law of retaliation"? The root principle of this law is to provide equitable retribution.
30 songs on iTunes = ~$30
How did they come up with the damages? Did he upload each song 22,500 times?
Can they prove how many times he uploaded aka 'illegally sold' (even though to sell something you need payment, so he shared aka gave away for free)
And here I thought this crap was over with in 2000...:rolleyes:
 
When a judgement like this is handed down do they actually get their money? Check/tax garnishment?
 
That article has shit for facts.

We need the name of the Judge at least.

But apparently the entire jury was also bought off? Anyway to look up these people? They need to be beat.
 
eth3ton said:
When a judgement like this is handed down do they actually get their money? Check/tax garnishment?
Click to expand...

Wage and tax garnishment. Solution, create a business LLC, do work through that, claim no paycheck and write off everything. All assets should be purchased by the company.

Or work directly for cash under the table.
 
This makes about as much sense as giving someone the death penalty for jaywalking. He illegally downloaded $30 worth of stuff, so he should have to pay $30 and maybe do some community service. Lifelong financial ruin over petty theft is insane. He would have gotten a lighter sentence if he had just walked into a store and taken the CDs off the shelves.
 
OK, the Plaintiff is SONY.

If you are stud, write a letter:

Attention: Sony Music Feedback
Sony Music Entertainment
550 Madison Avenue, 23rd Floor,
New York, NY 10022-3211

If not, fill out this:

http://hub.sonymusic.com/about/feedback.php

If you are a hero, do both and pass it on.

My Text:

"I own thousands of dollars of Sony Products and Entertainment items. Why? I consider Sony to be a Premium Brand.

After reading that you are going to wreck a kid's life for sharing music by enforcing a $675,000 settlement, I'm thinking Sony is dangerous to my family. Will buying your products put our family at risk? I do not know. I do know that if the risk is 0.001% of losing everything I worked for because I bought Sony items.

Let's put this into context. What does Sony sell to my family that is worth a $675,000 risk? Nothing. Sony does not sell life-critical items.

Unless some kind of realistic settlement is forthcoming to the media, I cannot buy Sony products due to the risk involved.

Nothing Sony sells is worth risking our family's future."
 
The Copyright Act permits recovery of either actual damages and profits, or statutory damages.
17 U.S.C. § 504(a). The statute establishes an award range of $750 to $30,000 for each act of nonwillful infringement, and a range of $750 to $150,000 for each act of willful infringement. Id. § 504(c)

lolol america. go fuck yourself.
 
US Courts have one system of justice for the richest 1% and another for the 99%. :mad:
 
chockomonkey said:
Exactly. They must have been specially picked as being bribable individuals. How in the hell is not ONE of them a sane individual?
Click to expand...

They need more than one individual unfortunately, this was a civil case not criminal

Criminal case = beyond a reasonable doubt (everyone has to be 100% sure) :mad:
Civil case = preponderance of the evidence (only have to be 51% sure) :eek:
 
You guys grow up a little.

When you punish a thief you have to punish them for MORE than they actually took such that they realize it was not worth it to break the law. Otherwise what reason do they have not to simply steal as much as they can then only pay back what they are caught with?

Second in most cases the person probably fought something they should have just settled for pennies on the dollar out of court. Don't fight it and drive up the lawer costs etc... If you took it then man up. You start racking up time in court and they keep increasing the costs and you can bet they are going to go after those costs.

Then lets throw in some of the other realities, he only stole 30 songs right? Oh really? I am sure someone who knows how to bit torrent and was caught, was caught on their first ever day using it, right? lol. No he has probably stolen way more than that this is just the 30 songs they could clearly prove after they threw out everything else for various reasons.

Also lay off the jury, a jury does not determine a sentence, it is not their job to decide to free someone from guilt simply because they don't agree with the sentence. Should a juror free a murderer because they don't believe in the death penalty? If you guys seriously think that its up to the jury to do that then go back to the 1900s when jurors would free a white man just because he killed a black man, because that is very much the message you are getting across if you think that a jury should be freeing people simply because of their personal belief on an issue.

Finally don't forget to preorder your PS4 everyone SONY always has you the customers best interest at hand. And unlike MS they are not a money grubbing corporation they don't even care about money ha.
 
Exactly, the jurors should have been briefed on what jury nullification is and why it's important. If they were I very seriously doubt they would have the same ruling.
 
the worst part about this is he was likely downloading Justin Beiber or some shit like that.
 
rudy said:
You guys grow up a little.

When you punish a thief you have to punish them for MORE than they actually took such that they realize it was not worth it to break the law. Otherwise what reason do they have not to simply steal as much as they can then only pay back what they are caught with?

Second in most cases the person probably fought something they should have just settled for pennies on the dollar out of court. Don't fight it and drive up the lawer costs etc... If you took it then man up. You start racking up time in court and they keep increasing the costs and you can bet they are going to go after those costs.

Then lets throw in some of the other realities, he only stole 30 songs right? Oh really? I am sure someone who knows how to bit torrent and was caught, was caught on their first ever day using it, right? lol. No he has probably stolen way more than that this is just the 30 songs they could clearly prove after they threw out everything else for various reasons.

Also lay off the jury, a jury does not determine a sentence, it is not their job to decide to free someone from guilt simply because they don't agree with the sentence. Should a juror free a murderer because they don't believe in the death penalty? If you guys seriously think that its up to the jury to do that then go back to the 1900s when jurors would free a white man just because he killed a black man, because that is very much the message you are getting across if you think that a jury should be freeing people simply because of their personal belief on an issue.

Finally don't forget to preorder your PS4 everyone SONY always has you the customers best interest at hand. And unlike MS they are not a money grubbing corporation they don't even care about money ha.
Click to expand...

Jury nullification works fine if you actually do a proper jury selection.
 
reading the case file sure puts a lot of light on the actions of those involved.
apparently the original judge wanted to reduce the fine from $675,000 to $67,500 (which would be $2,250 per song ie. three times the minimum 3x$750)
The court of appeals vacated the ruling stating the $675,000 fine was NOT excessive.
Don't get mad at the original Judge, get mad at the Jury who decided on the $22,500 per song fine and the First Court Judges who agreed $675,000 was more appropriate than $67,500.
 
rudy said:
You guys grow up a little.

When you punish a thief you have to punish them for MORE than they actually took such that they realize it was not worth it to break the law. Otherwise what reason do they have not to simply steal as much as they can then only pay back what they are caught with?

Second in most cases the person probably fought something they should have just settled for pennies on the dollar out of court. Don't fight it and drive up the lawer costs etc... If you took it then man up. You start racking up time in court and they keep increasing the costs and you can bet they are going to go after those costs.

Then lets throw in some of the other realities, he only stole 30 songs right? Oh really? I am sure someone who knows how to bit torrent and was caught, was caught on their first ever day using it, right? lol. No he has probably stolen way more than that this is just the 30 songs they could clearly prove after they threw out everything else for various reasons.

Also lay off the jury, a jury does not determine a sentence, it is not their job to decide to free someone from guilt simply because they don't agree with the sentence. Should a juror free a murderer because they don't believe in the death penalty? If you guys seriously think that its up to the jury to do that then go back to the 1900s when jurors would free a white man just because he killed a black man, because that is very much the message you are getting across if you think that a jury should be freeing people simply because of their personal belief on an issue.

Finally don't forget to preorder your PS4 everyone SONY always has you the customers best interest at hand. And unlike MS they are not a money grubbing corporation they don't even care about money ha.
Click to expand...

If sharing 30 songs was worth 1/2 a person's income for life, then perhaps trillions of dollars are owed to an industry that doesn't generate a fraction of that.

If you played a Sony song in your home for guests, you need to cut them a $22k check.
 
FiveFig said:
30 songs on iTunes = ~$30
How did they come up with the damages? Did he upload each song 22,500 times?
Can they prove how many times he uploaded aka 'illegally sold' (even though to sell something you need payment, so he shared aka gave away for free)
And here I thought this crap was over with in 2000...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

This has always been my thought. If they are caught with 30 or 300 song they should pay what the market value is plus court fees. It was even proven that the artists see very little, if any at all, of the money made from these lawsuits.
 
I'm 110% against pirating.

But I also believe fines == years of work.

That sounds like a 30 year sentence. Ridiculous. Murder is 25.
 
rudy said:
You guys grow up a little.

When you punish a thief you have to punish them for MORE than they actually took such that they realize it was not worth it to break the law. Otherwise what reason do they have not to simply steal as much as they can then only pay back what they are caught with?

Second in most cases the person probably fought something they should have just settled for pennies on the dollar out of court. Don't fight it and drive up the lawer costs etc... If you took it then man up. You start racking up time in court and they keep increasing the costs and you can bet they are going to go after those costs.

Then lets throw in some of the other realities, he only stole 30 songs right? Oh really? I am sure someone who knows how to bit torrent and was caught, was caught on their first ever day using it, right? lol. No he has probably stolen way more than that this is just the 30 songs they could clearly prove after they threw out everything else for various reasons.

Also lay off the jury, a jury does not determine a sentence, it is not their job to decide to free someone from guilt simply because they don't agree with the sentence. Should a juror free a murderer because they don't believe in the death penalty? If you guys seriously think that its up to the jury to do that then go back to the 1900s when jurors would free a white man just because he killed a black man, because that is very much the message you are getting across if you think that a jury should be freeing people simply because of their personal belief on an issue.

Finally don't forget to preorder your PS4 everyone SONY always has you the customers best interest at hand. And unlike MS they are not a money grubbing corporation they don't even care about money ha.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone's disputing that the guy committed wrongdoings. Just that the punishment is cruel and unusual. Ironic how you're propping Sony up when they're one of the many 1% tax evaders (don't get me started on loan companies and hedge funders) and corporations trying to legislate laws to keep citizens down under their thumb.
 
Qinsp said:
If sharing 30 songs was worth 1/2 a person's income for life, then perhaps trillions of dollars are owed to an industry that doesn't generate a fraction of that.
Click to expand...

1/2 a persons income for life!? Some of these corporation vs. corporation lawsuits are much, much lower (sure, there are some high profile ones that are more - Apple vs. Samsung etc.).. .05% of annual revenue? Let me cut you a check right now.

I see who is in charge here. And, it sure as shit isn't the American people.

I can see more as a deterrent, of course. But, 22K a song? No. That's excessive by any stretch of the imagination (unless you push over that bag of $50,000).
 
rudy said:
You guys grow up a little.

When you punish a thief you have to punish them for MORE than they actually took such that they realize it was not worth it to break the law. Otherwise what reason do they have not to simply steal as much as they can then only pay back what they are caught with?
Click to expand...
Not according to the law of lex talionis

rudy said:
Second in most cases the person probably fought something they should have just settled for pennies on the dollar out of court. Don't fight it and drive up the lawer costs etc... If you took it then man up. You start racking up time in court and they keep increasing the costs and you can bet they are going to go after those costs.
Click to expand...
Yea! Never fight for your rights (except to P-A-R-R-R-T-Y)
Just give into the almighty corporations, they know best and are always FAIR and BALANCED right?

rudy said:
Then lets throw in some of the other realities, he only stole 30 songs right? Oh really? I am sure someone who knows how to bit torrent and was caught, was caught on their first ever day using it, right? lol. No he has probably stolen way more than that this is just the 30 songs they could clearly prove after they threw out everything else for various reasons.
Click to expand...
Great assumption, maybe you want to read the court documents instead of making blanket statements with 'facts' you pulled out of your ass?

rudy said:
Also lay off the jury, a jury does not determine a sentence, it is not their job to decide to free someone from guilt simply because they don't agree with the sentence. Should a juror free a murderer because they don't believe in the death penalty? If you guys seriously think that its up to the jury to do that then go back to the 1900s when jurors would free a white man just because he killed a black man, because that is very much the message you are getting across if you think that a jury should be freeing people simply because of their personal belief on an issue.
Click to expand...
Did you RTFA? The Jury determined the sentence & the fine. If the Jury determined nothing as you seem to believe, then what's the point of having a Jury? /sigh@commonsense

rudy said:
Finally don't forget to preorder your PS4 everyone SONY always has you the customers best interest at hand. And unlike MS they are not a money grubbing corporation they don't even care about money ha.
Click to expand...
Nothing finishes off a troll rant like a little blatant asshattery, ty!
 
This is absurd. If anyone is caught and proven to be illegally possessing (not seeding/uploading/downloading) digital music, they should be assessed the retail value of the songs on the consumer market; that amount to be paid to the plaintiff, maybe impose a little bit more monetary punishment value (that money to be paid to the court, not the plaintiff--maybe a few hundred bucks or something to offset the costs and slightly increase the liability of the convicted).

No more of this insanely high punitive damage bullshit.

On the other hand, this kid was (allegedly) warned multiple times by RIAA letters to stop his file-distribution. If that's the case, I have much less sympathy for his situation.

I do not condone or encourage illegal file distribution (though I would say we've all tried it at one point)--I think people should pay for what they want to use, or otherwise not use/have that thing. If you don't think something is worth the price to have it, and if you feel strongly that, say, music IP is not worth the prices that the industry is imposing, then properly protest it, speak with your wallet, don't buy it, don't listen to it, but also don't over-inflate its perceived value by illegally acquiring it.
 
If I were him, I'd be looking at moving to India or somewhere in Asia as soon as I graduated. He could pretty easily disappear and live well on what would be a modest income in the US.
 
Completely ruin someone's life for sharing 30 songs on the internet. $675,000. I don't know what kind of justice anyone could possibly think this is in relation to breaking the law. Like this guy is really a criminal. Holy moly I sure wouldn't want to meet him in a dark alley. I sure hope there is some kind of way for this poor dude to get out of having to pay that. Ridiculous doesn't even begin to describe this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top