Defense Attorney Call $675,000 File Sharing Verdict "Unreasonable"
Defense Attorney Call $675,000 File Sharing Verdict "Unreasonable"
Posted 01/06/2010 at 9:19am
| by Paul Lilly
21
Comments
Print
This will sound all too familiar to anyone who followed the Jammie Thomas saga, but once again, a convicted file sharer's legal team feels the punishment doesn't fit the crime.
The comments stem from the nation's second file sharing defendant to take the RIAA to court. By doing so, Joel Tenenbaum was ultimately fined $22,500 per song for a total of $675,000 in damages for infringing 30 songs.
"Given that fact that Tenenbaum was one of many millions of people sharing music and that the plaintiffs have failed to show any actual damages from Tenenbaum's particular actions, this award is obviously 'so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportionate to the offense and obviously unreasonable,'" wrote Charles Nesson, Tenenbaum's attorney.
The problem for Tenenbaum and Nesson is that they're clearly facing an uphill battle. Jammie Thomas, the first defendant to challenge the RIAA in court, also received a stiff penalty, only to have it increased to a whopping $1.92 million in appeals.
More like this
kris79
January 07, 2010 at 6:50pm
Wow! Thanks for the clear and cogent thoughts. I hadn't previously considered several of your points. I'm listening to YOU from now on - and by the way, my first language isn't even English. I only say that cause - I get your point...kris
highsidednb
January 07, 2010 at 8:31am
A few points:
Why do the holier-than-thous ignore all the studies and polls? Like the ones that show that that vast majority of people who torrent music spend more money on music than the average consumer? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/illegal-downloaders-spend-the-most-on-music-says-poll-1812776.html
Considering that artists make more money from merchandising and touring, do illegal downloads of music even matter anymore?
Again, technology and consumer behavior are demanding that the old dinosaurs catch up and change. Consumers want better product, lower prices, and easier access. There are ways to acheive this: subscription-based content, streaming libraries, direct distribution by artists, etc. Perhaps if the members of the RIAA and MPAA spend less on legal costs and put the savings into R&D they'd change. But they won't. They still believe the old business models are viable.
Last, the idea that people react emotionally to the illegal download/torrenting of content debate because deep down they know they're wrong is interesting. Are people who react emotionally to oppressive governments the same (e.g. Iran?) I bet all those people on the streets during last year's elections were emotional because they knew deep down that they were wrong. Just because a law exists doesn't mean it is either moral or efficient.
Atomike
January 08, 2010 at 7:44am
"Why do the holier-than-thous ignore all the studies and polls?"
I guess there are some people left in the world who don't rely on studies and polls to tell them what's right.
kris79
January 07, 2010 at 7:08am
The struggle of good vs evil continues to evolve. Nevertheless, Darwinism will
prevail. DRM army drones and their overlord masters haven't recognized yet
that those pesky swashbucklers and anarchists are changing the way we
think and act about piracy. They've already helped create new sites like Steam, Impulse, and D2D that not only help
you update your stuff for free, but also keep it safe for you to
download as many times as you see fit. Someday the Hollywood
Gods may forge a big enough flyswatter to smite all the gnats. Perhaps they may have to adapt to the changing technology by actually
selling something other than the decades old series of notes that they
possess in their music archives. The battle goes on much like an MMO.There
are a few things that keep the game interesting - the rules change. You
can buy your politicians, judges, and rules with God gold. The politically
unconnected poor swabby, will parry with technological savvy. So what about Darwinism? Eventually someone has to win. The way it's looking now, I'd buy stock in a pirate ship. Enjoy the game...
Frameboy
January 06, 2010 at 12:43pm
At the end of the day, they want massive media coverage and headlines... like a house wife getting a $2m judgement against her.
They know she'll never be able to pay it, but the headline will scare some people straight.
There is no bad press! (Tell that to the Balloon Boy's dad!)
Caboose
January 06, 2010 at 10:35am
I'm still trying to figure out why a song sold on iTunes can go for 99 cents, yet these guys are being charged twenty of thousands of dollars per track... It doesn't make any sense!
-= I don't want to be dead, I want to be alive! Or... a cowboy! =-
Atomike
January 06, 2010 at 11:00am
If you put blueprints to a top-secret nuclear weapon online, you've certainly done more damage than cost of the
actual paper it's printed on. Right? Intellectual non-physuical property HAS value. Making it available to everyone for free is blatantly stealing the right of the music industry to distribute.That right is worth more than 99 cents.Her actions allows others to steal it, which means the recording industry has suffered. Granted, we all hate the music industry, but this music does belong to them - it's NOT free.
Granted, the RIAA are bad - but pirates are equally bad, if not worse.
Frameboy
January 06, 2010 at 12:14pm
You have to prove that!
In this case, the court is assuming that the song is downloaded by 20,000 other people and that each of those people would have actually paid for those songs.
They could probably prove that, but the amount of work and records would be very expensive.
For some reason, US courts are accepting assumptions, whcih isn't how it should be.
US civil court is messed up...
Neufeldt2002
January 06, 2010 at 11:37am
It was not that long ago that music was free. You paid to see the muscian live. What is happening, is that people are taking back what was once free.
I wanted a signature, but all I got was this ________
MeTo
January 06, 2010 at 10:32am
IMO if you are selling these thirty songs making profit you deserve the smack down. Other wise $100 fine a song would sound more inline. Fit the punishment to the crime.
Atomike
January 06, 2010 at 11:02am
I'm going to take all the work you've ever done, and distribute it for free to everyone. Granted, years of your hard work is now wasted, and your income is now severely limited, but my penalty for taking all your hard work is worth about $100. Sounds fair.
mrclean816
January 06, 2010 at 11:15am
were not talking about an entire discography being shared to 20 thousand people.
30 songs that were probably downloaded each what, 100 times to be conservative.
at 99 cents a song thats what 3 thousand bucks.
then again there's always legal fee's.
highsidednb
January 06, 2010 at 11:16am
What about those books I loaned to my friends? Should I be fined for that too? I cost the book store a sale.
Or what about mix-cds I've made for friends? Should I be fined for that?
Your argument as well as the one above defending the RIAA are playing on the unfounded idea that songs or movies are somehow limited commodities whose price and distribution are a true reflection of value. But that's a lesson in economics...And if you think artists would be properly compensated in a world without piracy, you need to go read some history on the recording industry.
The real situation here is that the companies that make up the MPAA & RIAA are dinosaurs who haven't been able to move fast enough to meet their customers' demands.
Case in point: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/most-pirated-movie-makes-heaps-money
Star Trek-most "pirated" movie in history. Also the top grosser of 2009 that will net the studio at least $100 million. Box office receipts also broke records in 2009, in the midst of the worst economy since the great depression.
Atomike
January 06, 2010 at 11:42am
Your argument is fatally flawed. You can loan a book because you are giving up your own rights when you do so. You no longer own that book and can't use it. You can also loan a CD, and really, I think you should be able to loan a downloaded mp3. However, if you do so, you give up your own rights to that property.
You somehow believe that when you buy a song, you have the right to multiply ownership. Which is blatantly and obviously theft by any standard. A mix tape does the same thing - which is why it is a violation. Rightfully so.
Please don't attempt to justify theft - and make no mistake, piracy is theft. To say otherwise is merely illogical justification. I think we all know this deep down, which is why people get so upset. They know they're acting immorally, but don't like to admit they are a bad person. But truth is truth. Sorry.
snapple00
January 06, 2010 at 11:42am
Huh?
Were those books you loaned actually music downloads for your self?
They can't keep pace with consumers demands? Like getting media for free instantly rather than paying for it?
And who says Star Trek wouldn't have grossed a lot more money if it wasn't pirated? Since it was the top grosser, that is good enough? Or are you trying to say this is proof of something?
I think the fines were unreasonable personally, but it always comes back to the 'big evil music' business that is really to blame right? Or the artists that should make something worth buying argument.
Velcrow
January 06, 2010 at 12:23pm
Meh, speculation. On both sides. The law needs to apply to what can be proven. Take this case, for instance. They can probably prove that other users downloaded songs from the defendant. They may even get an exact number. However, there can be little to no proof beyond that of the damages. Hence, the penalty should apply to what IS. Over 22k per song sounds like they are assuming mass distribution. However, according to the law the penalty per offense (per song I guess) can be between $750 to $150,000. So basically a number gets pulled out of somewhere. Seems like the damages are extremely relative to who's picking the fine. I have trouble with that being part of our legal system.
Biceps
January 06, 2010 at 2:57pm
Federal Law outlines exactly what the allowable FINES are for a given copyright infringement... remember those red WARNING screens at the beginning of every single (non-pirated) movie you have ever watched? Remember how that warning screen tells you EXACTLY how much you will be paying or how long you will be spending in jail if you are caught infringing?
I easily spend $1000.00 of my own hard-earned $$ on music and pc games every year. If I were getting that from file-sharing sites instead of purchasing it (and figures show MOST people actually steal, not purchase movies, games and music), then the recording industry would be out $1000.00. Now, it might be fair to argue that, because it was free, I would actually steal/download MORE than $1000.00 of media; so, if I were caught, I would be liable for more than I actually would have purchased. This, Velcrow, is what I read as the substance of your argument. Sorry, but that argument sucks donkey balls. If you are going to break the law, you are setting yourself up to be reamed by the law. That's the law :).
The moral is this: if you can't afford to buy the music, you definitely can't afford to steal it. So don't... or get reamed, I don't care.
(World) Peace
gendoikari1
January 06, 2010 at 9:45am
The defence attorneys also proclaimed the sky to be blue, that bears shit in the woods and the Pope to be Catholic. The only people that don't see this as unreasonable are the MAFIAA themselves.
Connect with MaximumPC
Featured Content
We introduce Intel's latest class of tablet killers and review 4 of the first Ultra...
Where have all the memorable videogame enemies gone?
This month's issue
Feature
11 Hardware Hacks
Feature
Overclock Your CPU
How-To
Supercharge Your Smartphone
Build It
A Powerful $830 Rig
Most Commented Articles
Latest Max PC Tweets
- maximumpc: Analysts: 9-Inch Kindle Fire This Summer http://t.co/QDYApwCZ1 day 3 hours ago
- maximumpc: Micron: DRAM Prices Likely as Low as They're Going to Get http://t.co/fFUWuFOm1 day 6 hours ago
- maximumpc: Yar, Mateys! All Of Pirate Bay Made Available As A Single 90MB Zip File http://t.co/j5LHlXEZ1 day 8 hours ago
