Joel Tenenbaum: Jury Awards $675,000 In Boston Music Downloading Case

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Joel Tenenbaum: Jury Awards $675,000 In Boston Music Downloading Case stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

DENISE LAVOIE | 07/31/09 07:37 PM | AP

I Like ItI Don’t Like It
Joel Tenenbaum, a graduate student from Providence, R.I., poses outside federal court, after taking the stand in his defense in his copyright-infringement trial, Thursday, July 30, 2009, in Boston. Tenenbaum is accused of illegally swapping music through an online file-sharing network. (AP Photo/Bizuayehu Tesfaye)

BOSTON — A federal jury on Friday ordered a Boston University graduate student who admitted illegally downloading and sharing music online to pay $675,000 to four record labels.

Joel Tenenbaum, of Providence, R.I., admitted in court that he downloaded and distributed 30 songs. The only issue for the jury to decide was how much in damages to award the record labels.

Under federal law, the recording companies were entitled to $750 to $30,000 per infringement. But the law allows as much as $150,000 per track if the jury finds the infringements were willful. The maximum jurors could have awarded in Tenenbaum's case was $4.5 million.

Jurors ordered Tenenbaum to pay $22,500 for each incident of copyright infringement, effectively finding that his actions were willful. The attorney for the 25-year-old student had asked the jury earlier Friday to "send a message" to the music industry by awarding only minimal damages.

Tenenbaum said he was thankful that the case wasn't in the millions and contrasted the significance of his fine with the maximum.

"That to me sends a message of 'We considered your side with some legitimacy,'" he said. "$4.5 million would have been, 'We don't buy it at all.'"

He added he will file for bankruptcy if the verdict stands.

Tenenbaum's lawyer, Harvard Law School professor Charles Nesson, said the jury's verdict was not fair. He said he plans to appeal the decision because he was not allowed to argue a case based on fair use.

Story continues below
advertisement

The Recording Industry Association of America issued a statement thanking the jury for recognizing the impact illegal downloading has on the music community.

"We appreciate that Mr. Tenenbaum finally acknowledged that artists and music companies deserve to be paid for their work," the statement said. "From the beginning, that's what this case has been all about. We only wish he had done so sooner rather than lie about his illegal behavior."

Tenenbaum would not say if he regretted downloading music, saying it was a loaded question.

"I don't regret drinking underage in college, even though I got busted a few times," he said.

The case is only the nation's second music downloading case against an individual to go to trial.

Last month, a federal jury in Minneapolis ruled that Jammie Thomas-Rasset, 32, must pay $1.92 million, or $80,000 on each of 24 songs, after concluding she willfully violated the copyrights on those tunes.

The jury began deliberating the case Friday afternoon.

After Tenenbaum admitted Thursday he is liable for damages for 30 songs at issue in the case, U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner ruled that the jury must consider only whether his copyright infringement was willful and how much in damages to award four recording labels that sued him over the illegal file-sharing.

In his closing statement Friday, Nesson repeatedly referred to Tenenbaum as a "kid" and asked the jury to award only a small amount to the recording companies. At one point, Nesson suggested the damages should be as little as 99 cents per song, roughly the same amount Tenenbaum would have to pay if he legally purchased the music online.

But Tim Reynolds, a lawyer for the recording labels, recounted Tenenbaum's history of file-sharing from 1999 to 2007, describing him as "a hardcore, habitual, long-term infringer who knew what he was doing was wrong." Tenenbaum admitted on the witness stand that he had downloaded and shared more than 800 songs.

Tenenbaum said he downloaded and shared hundreds of songs by Nirvana, Green Day, The Smashing Pumpkins and other artists. The recording industry focused on only 30 songs in the case.

The music industry has typically offered to settle such cases for about $5,000, though it has said that it stopped filing such lawsuits last August and is instead working with Internet service providers to fight the worst offenders. Cases already filed, however, are proceeding to trial.

Tenenbaum testified that he had lied in pretrial depositions when he said his two sisters, friends and others may have been responsible for downloading the songs to his computer.

Under questioning from his own lawyer, Tenenbaum said he now takes responsibility for the illegal swapping.

"I used the computer. I uploaded, I downloaded music ... I did it," Tenenbaum said.

__

Associated Press writer Jeannie Nuss contributed reporting from Boston.

BOSTON — A federal jury on Friday ordered a Boston University graduate student who admitted illegally downloading and sharing music online to pay $675,000 to four record labels. Joel Tenenbaum,...
BOSTON — A federal jury on Friday ordered a Boston University graduate student who admitted illegally downloading and sharing music online to pay $675,000 to four record labels. Joel Tenenbaum,...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
877
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (13 pages total)

This licensing argument cracks me up because only lawyers would think it packs any credibility with the public.

Imagine this:

Steve: "Hey Bob, remember when we used to sit around and smoke pot while blasting that license from Deep Purple?"

Bob: Oh dude, the "Machine Head license kicked as*.

Steve. "Yeah, Deep Purple really gave good license back then."

Absurd, right?

Look, when you start talking about licensing, the general public's eyes glaze over. This isn't the way to make them sympathize with you if you are with the RIAA. They just want to listen to music and not have to consider legal issues to do so. This is yet another reason why people hate lawyers and who they work for (RIAA).

Oh, and by the way, the public relations folks who work for the RIAA should be fired. They are obviously not doing their job. Probably only the IRS is hated more by the public than the RIAA.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:28 AM on 08/03/2009

The "stealing" thing should be put to rest. Let's accept that putting proprietary audio files online constituted stealing or theft. The point is: his punishment works out to a fine worth 27,000 times the commercial value of his transgression. That is wildly and grotesquely out of line. Name any other situation where the punishment is extreme to those levels. Exxon went crying to the Supreme Court over a fine that was less than ten times the damage they did in Alaska. The "culprit" in this case was being defended by a law school class. One could argue that RIAA was actually in court to scare people into continuing to settle for the $5000 extortions.

Interpretation of copyright infringement is far too strict these days. If, in past decades, such interpretations were enforced then artists such as Charlie Parker and Bob Dylan would have had their careers curtailed and the venues they performed in early in their careers would have been closed. Culture is more fluid and nuanced than a strict product/consumer relationship. The posters who go on and on about the songwriters honing their craft and how we need to respect their artistry don't seem to understand that the industry and regulations that they support have been shutting down open mic nights at small local coffee shops. The issue is more complex than you seem to realize.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:58 PM on 08/02/2009
photo

While I agree 100% with just about everything you said... allowing unauthorized copies of audio files hosted on your computer to be made constitutes copyright infringement not theft.

I refuse to buy into this media conglomerate propaganda. The laws that apply relate to copyright not ownership. Copy something doesn't deprive the owner of the original of his copy. Copying something will never be theft without redefining the meaning of the word. Sorry. Linguistic games and their semantic modification for political reasons is simply unacceptable if language is to have any common meaning at all. I also insist on the use of "torture" instead of "harsh interrogation" and "estate tax" instead of "death tax".

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:17 PM on 08/02/2009
- wilray I'm a Fan of wilray 71 fans permalink
photo

Absolutely right copyright means the right to copy. We consider somethings as okay to copy legally so. That's why there are copy machines and computers in libraries. No one thinks twice about copying something from a book or magazine or making a print out from a webpage. Even distribution that is considered a copyrights violation may get a pass if you can label it for educational or academic purposes. Any author or writer that gets upset that people are copy pages from his book or work at the library doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. Once upon a time they tried prevent video tape rentals. See how that turned out. Adult materials are just as copyrightable. Have you ever look in the adult section of your neighborhood video store. Many tapes and DVDs are marked by the distributer as "Not for Renting." I'm guessing it's not something they can actually enforce or sue for. That's just as imaginary as the XXX rating.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:14 PM on 08/02/2009
photo

your 27,000 times figure just takes into account his files .. the issue is that he distributed them .. to how many people?

RIAA is trying to scare people into not illegally distributing music ..

Not that RIAA is not without significant issues .. but that shouldn't overshadow the issue of illegal distribution .. and the free for all sense of entitlement that has emerged from the internet .. The issue about coffee shops is dealing with BMI and ASCAP .. and I agree with you that right now that is over the top .. but I also think it is adjusting and will continue to adjust ..the concept of trying to enforce that at such a micro level would (if they continue it) hopefully lead to a "market value" price point .. I don't think the interpretation of the law has changed .. more that technology has made it easier to enforce ..

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:00 PM on 08/02/2009

Let's go back to those days of yesteryear, when there was no such thing as the internet.

If I lent a copy of an Aerosmith LP to a friend of mine and he made cassette copies for free of it for ten of his friends or even his entire high school class, then should I be on the hook financially for the PERCEIVED loss of royalties? Should the RIAA have come busting down the door to the apartment I was living in with my parents (since I was still a schoolboy) and been allowed to seize all my audio equipment for inspection?

Because that is what this argument devolves down to in a sense. The RIAA searches people's computers without warrants (something even the FBI can't do) and then sends them subpoenas, sometimes to the wrong parties. So you want a corporate police force with more power than the Justice Department? Really?

The fact is that the behavior of the RIAA does matter. It has lost credibility with the public through its grossly heavy handed actions and so ripping them off via file sharing is cool because it is a big middle finger to big fascistic and impersonal corporations. In fact, it shares some of the qualities of our current and expensively futile war on drugs. So either the RIAA attempts to reach a public relations rapprochement with the public and get its technological and logistical house in order or it will continue to suffer the aforementioned credibility problems.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:19 AM on 08/03/2009

Yes, to whit, "pirate" negotiation.

I would not be the first to suggest that all this copyright "piracy" has had the effect, of making it much easier for musicians to access an audience (AND, hopefully, to get paid ), functioning in a way, not all that dissimilar to radio, or before that pre-industrial traveling musicians.

It is a shaded and evolving continuum.

Preposterous show trials, are just that, propaganda for an absolutist framework, based on false assumptions, sophistry, and corporate jingoism.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:55 AM on 08/03/2009

The problem is, conceding your premise, is like saying yes, there is witchcraft, but burning at the stake is too severe.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:26 AM on 08/03/2009
photo

wonder when they ll get there check hmmm??

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:35 AM on 08/02/2009
- Tunghoy I'm a Fan of Tunghoy 39 fans permalink

Music is so cheap these days, it makes little sense to me not just to risk the penalties of illegal downloading, but to waste time with the hassle of finding material that downloads properly and quickly.

I subscribe to Rhapsody (owned by Real Networks) that gives me millions of songs for about $15 a month. And I can drag and drop them to my portable player, so DRM restrictions aren't a big issue. And there are other similar services with similar pricing, like Napster and E-music.

The genius mentioned in this article wasn't satisfied with music that was merely cheap. He wanted it free. Seems that's rather expensive.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:28 AM on 08/02/2009

The important thing is that money comes from your pocket and goes into the bank account of Sony or another music company. At 99 cents a song or $15/month for infinite songs, it does not matter to them. The amount is less important, because data can be copied infitnitely for little incremental cost to these music sites. Its more important that everyone pays them tribute, the flow of money is their concern. Distribution is free without artificial restrictions in this day and age after all.

I admit the $15/month DRM free plan is a big improvement over the 99 cents with DRM model, because now it allows people to collect thousands of song legally without paying thousands of dollars to music companies for the privilege of copying the data. The increased access is good for enhancing culture. However, seeing kangaroo trials like these make me want to withhold every red cent I can from the companies that are suing.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:19 PM on 08/02/2009
- peacekitten I'm a Fan of peacekitten 573 fans permalink
photo

dearthreadnazis.

thank you for leaving up grotesquely racially offensive slurs for hours, and scrubbing my post without a single swear word or racial slur in it.

maybe that's what i need to do is write posts full of curses, racial insults and epithets, and then you'll leave me alone.

you're suchfuckin­ghypocrite­sit'sjawdr­opping.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:24 AM on 08/02/2009
- Tunghoy I'm a Fan of Tunghoy 39 fans permalink

Welcome to the club!

My guess is that TheMonitorsAre HighSchoolInterns who don't understand AdultLevel­Conversati­on. They certainly don't seem to understand that words have different meanings in different contexts. Perhaps they're doing it in preparation of majoring in English or journalism, so hopefully they'll get better educated.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:16 AM on 08/02/2009
photo

I think they outsource it as ESL homework.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:52 AM on 08/02/2009
photo

USANumberONE I'm a Fan of USANumberONE I'm a fan of this user permalink

G F Y Joooboy.

Bittorrent rocks.

Try shutting it down.
Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:33 AM on 08/02/2009

--

USANumberONE I'm a Fan of USANumberONE I'm a fan of this user permalink

Look Jooooboy, I know you are upset because your little jooopiggie brothers can't rape the artists.
Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:29 AM on 08/02/2009

--

USANumberONE I'm a Fan of USANumberONE I'm a fan of this user permalink

We feel great everytime we ripoff another jooopig who run the records companies.
Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:32 AM on 08/02/2009

---

---

M0DERAT0RS...

EXPLAIN YOURSELVES!

WHY IS THIS GUY STILL HERE?????

This ARBITRARY SCRUBBING has been DOCUMENTED.. screenshots have been COMPILED & our GROUP of FOUNDING MEMBERS are already in communication with your SUPERIORS at HP.

The only thing, in the end, that you are "scrubbing" are your JOBS.

COUNT on it.
.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:23 AM on 08/02/2009
- peacekitten I'm a Fan of peacekitten 573 fans permalink
photo

real artists like to eat.

real artists like to have a roof over their heads.

real artists like to provide for their families with the fruits of their art.

so yes, real artists DO care if you rip them off. they want their music out there, but they also want to be paid for it.

until and unless those of you defending the theft of intellectual property, or copyright infringement are willing to devote your careers to working for free, you have less than NO RIGHT to expect anyone else to do so either. how would you feel if the public thought it was "cool" to rip YOU off for whatever service it is you provide every day?

after reading the vicious, spiteful, h8ful comments on this thread because musicians expect to be paid for their music, i have come to the conclusion that the vast majority of people in this country really and truly do not deserve the privilege of having musicians either among you, or to perform concerts, and certainly not to make recordings.

in short, you simply don't deserve the privilege of art of any kind in your lives. far too many unevolved leeches.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:13 AM on 08/02/2009

QQ boohoo

Just got the Fleetwood Mac anthology in. Go Isohunt!!!

Hey peacekitten - tell me what music you've created, I'll see if anyone ever thought enough of it to upload it, and if they did, I'll download it and tell you which established musicians you ripped off. Sorry, I mean were influenced by. lol

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:05 AM on 08/02/2009
photo

If an artist feels they were plagiarized they can and will sue (see "I Want a New Drug" and "Ghostbusters" as a prime example).

Using the fact that art evolves and develops and that people are influenced by other people as a justification for stealing from them is like saying I should be able to steal a Dodge since they got the idea for cars from Ford.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:38 AM on 08/02/2009
photo


DEAR THREADNAZI­-M0DERAT0R­S --

We are losing some of our BRIGHTEST people because, for some INEXPLICABLE reason, this site has decided to become the exact OPPOSITE of what it started as: a PROGRESSIVE blog -- a place for OPEN EXCHANGE.

As peacekitten wrote --

You either believe in free speech or you don't -- but you cannot hold your hand out and wait for ADVERTISING money to drop into it, given to you as a "liberal" and staunch defender of "free speech” -- while at the same time ARBITRARILY C.ENSORING a website that you claim is open for anyone from the public to participate in.

That means that you don't get to SILENCE people simply because YOU do not like what they have to say.

You can't GAG someone for citing facts and speaking truth that YOU don't want others to know about -- because that makes YOU a HYPOCRITE.

You either BELIEVE in free speech or you DON'T.

You PRACTICE what you PREACH or you DON'T -- and if you don't, you need to expect to be dealt the CONSEQUENCES. ---------------

EXPOSURE -- as an entity that has been CORRUPTED by the same folks that corrupted our NATION.

HYPOCRISY.

This place is NO different than any other, and it should stop MARKETING itself as such.

Just as the republican party should call itself what it IS --

....just as people who DON'T STAND UP for what THEY BELIEVE IN should at least have the GUTS to call themselves as well.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:45 AM on 08/02/2009
- HST I'm a Fan of HST 48 fans permalink
photo

The record labels are quite right to be upset. How dare anyone rip off the artist, that's the record label's job. The reasoning here is evident, prosecute enough consumers and sales will increase. Way to alienate the customers.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:04 AM on 08/02/2009
photo

Nice way to skirt the fact that it is YOU ripping off the artist every time you download.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:25 AM on 08/02/2009
photo

"alienate the customers"

How? I've never understood that line. How does it alienate anyone from the music? There may be a few people upset by some particularly meritless "artists" who are already particularly rich and nevertheless particularly adamant about copyright issues. Lars Ulrich comes to mind, followed by Lars Ulrich and Lars Ulrich.

But except for those who are turned off by those lawsuits to the extent that they do not want to listen to = buy the music anymore, what are the customers going to do?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:31 AM on 08/02/2009
- HST I'm a Fan of HST 48 fans permalink
photo

I remember on the old Dennis Miller show they had on as a guest Dave Grohl from the band the Foo Fighters. Miller asked Grohl what he thought of Lars Ulrich and his whole take on downloading and his response was something along the lines of Lars sitting by the pool in his mansion worrying that he didn't get 25 cents royalty from a download. Dave said Lars could eat this and flipped the bird. Grohl also went on to say if you are downloading an unknown artist trying break big and that artist isn't making a lot of money from touring then that is different. So you see it is not just the consumers who are turned off by record companies greed fellow artists are too. People cry but but but it's stealing. I am happy to steal from record companies and I'd rather send my 99 cents directly to the artist that recorded the MP3 than give it to the labels so they can sue people for thousands of times what the music sells for. What the courts are doing on the labels behalf is NOT justice.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:47 AM on 08/02/2009

"The Law's the law".

Whole continents, e.g. Australia, were populated by convicts under stupid laws. If YOU want to petition the government to change the law, then do something about it.

Ghandi did it, the Iranians did it. Are you too comfortable in your own world to do something?

What would the RIAA do, if, for example, 10,000 people with stacks of CDRs started handing out copies of songs on times square, what would the police do? Would they treat it as a crime, worthy of tear gas and rubber bullets?

What are you doing as a consumer? For myself, I have not bought a RIAA label in years, and almost exclusively listen and buy on sites such as http://www.magnatune.com.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:45 AM on 08/02/2009
photo

AFM, how do you think discussing the accuracy of the vernacular terminology of a clearcut legal situation with a few fellow irrelevant guys on a news aggregator website is helping the situation and your situation?

I get the impression that maybe you're actually fighting for recognition of your personal feeling of having been stolen from. And that alone, even apart from the clearcut legal situation in the case at hand, non-negotiably renders it an actual theft.

But how is it helping? I call it copyright infringement, some call it stealing, you call it STEALING. It's still the same thing. Let them call it "mankind's collective hippie dream" if they prefer that. It's still the same thing. They'll get theirs. Unless and until that happens, you're not changing their attitude. And I don't think you're efficiently relaying the experience of someone who has been stolen from in a way those people could ever relate to.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:43 AM on 08/02/2009
photo

Aw Jeez. What is it with the literally meaning-free censorship here? The guy "USANumberONE" uses terms like "joooboy" etc, but you feel compelled to remove AnotherFineMess's harmless reply to me?

Are you actually condoning that rampant antisemitism of USANumberONE? Stop for a second and think about it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:02 AM on 08/02/2009
photo

These guys are history.

really.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:27 AM on 08/02/2009
photo

It probably is hopeless .. but I would like to think that most people don't wander down to the mall and steal things not because the are afraid of getting caught but because they recognize that stealing is wrong .. that effort and expense went into creating those goods and that effort and expense deserves to be rewarded if you value it.

I would hope that these people could see that a musician, photographer, artist, etc. has put a great deal of effort and expense into what they create and if you want them to continue to create you should reward them if you value their work not rationalize your sense of entitlement to it ..

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:59 AM on 08/02/2009

Joel Tenenbaum seems to be an average guy who uploaded some commercially licensed songs, and made them available to a relatively small number of people. He was not trafficking large amounts of counterfeit CDs or selling illicit downloads. He was selected randomly from tens of thousands like him and told to pay $5000 to RIAA or be prosecuted. His activities did not seriously effect any balance sheet or bottom line. The ultimate fine was twenty-sev­en-thousan­d times the commercial value of the uploaded files he was charged with.

Clearly he distributed proprietary audio files, or committed "theft", but it was at the level of a few mix tapes. Almost everyone I know has made mix tapes at one time or another, and the notion of having to pay up a massive fine, or even $5000, for doing so would be absurd. The damages case against a very very small fish like this is only in the aggregate. The RIAA should not have been permitted to have singled out one person to serve as an example and warning for the rest. Their resources far outmatch his and so a favorable verdict was almost inevitable. His life is getting wrecked for a very minor offense.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:56 AM on 08/02/2009
photo

That's what HE said.. but in ANY case.. he STOLE.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:20 AM on 08/02/2009
photo

Yes, he did. And if I were an artist (or even a corporate copyright holder who couldn't hold a musical instrument in my hands without damaging it), I'd be upset if people were illegally sharing / stealing my (or "my", in the case of the record company stockholder) material.

But personally, I'd try to help to actually curb or ideally abolish filesharing instead of these rather inefficient trials. These are not going to deter the worst offenders in the least.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:28 AM on 08/02/2009

And you have not? Oh, right, it's not you who's on trial.

Well, you should be. Charged with hypocrisy in the third degree.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:34 AM on 08/02/2009
- bjammin I'm a Fan of bjammin 16 fans permalink

Just a note: when arguing your case, please try not to capitalize words constantly. It doesn't really add anything to your argument (which might be a good one, but I don't really have a dog in this fight), and more to the point, makes you sound very angry. not a good state to be in when debating an issue.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:12 AM on 08/02/2009
- ReedYoung I'm a Fan of ReedYoung 139 fans permalink
photo

Even the $5000 settlement originally offered is disproportionate. RIAA suffered NO damages; in fact, the opportunity to download mp3s is correlated to increased sales. These lawsuits are ONLY a cynical, opportunistic ploy for a new revenue stream.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:11 AM on 08/02/2009

Copy right infringement is not theft, because no physical goods were taken from anyone. There is lost profit potential, but just because someone would download a stream of data, it does not mean that the user would have purchased it otherwise. Some can't afford to purchase the data, others refuse to at the prices charged, and others won't pay for anything. This is the reality that the Internet and computer technology has brought humanity. We can get nearly any information for free quickly and easily, and its bad for the old business model. If we remain silent about this and let government eventually prosecute copyright online, we may lose the vast grassroots information libraries that have naturally sprung up all over the Internet and eventually other Internet freedoms. If we reform copyright and allow these vast grassroots libraries to flourish, movies, music, software and video games may severely decline. The choice is ours.

I think we should embrace the new technology, because it provides unprecidented access to software tools, creative works, and other data that people can obtain for free and use to create new tools, works, ideas, or simply to enhance their own lives. You can call it piracy, stealing, satanic ritual mass downloading, or whatever, but it won't change the fact that it has great benefits for average people and is impossible to completely stop due to advancement in technology. Will we accept the use of file sharing, or will we attack it like we attack drug use?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:14 AM on 08/02/2009
photo

Rationalize all you want, kid.... you're TAKING something that someone ELSE created without PAYING for it.

STEALING it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:27 AM on 08/02/2009

You're right! I should pay for every item of information I consume. I got a copy of 1984 in PDF. I thought it was public domain, but the recent kindle fiasco showed me that I was wrong. To which corporation should I give my $10-$20 for the priviledge to read this work written in 1949 by a man who died in 1950? BTW the copright expires in 2044, 94 years after the author's death.

STEALING indeed.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:43 AM on 08/02/2009
photo

I'm pretty sure that we can have and will eventually have both.

Legal filesharing, where every download is automatically charged to the downloader's bank account.

Until then, filesharing of non-copyrighted files is indeed great and that technology will certainly not go away.

Also until then, illegal filesharing by any other name is still copyright infringement and utterly uncool.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:32 AM on 08/02/2009
- peacekitten I'm a Fan of peacekitten 573 fans permalink
photo

thief.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:06 AM on 08/02/2009
photo

"Copyright Infringement is not theft"
- that is why it is handled in civil court ..

"let government prosecute" .. the government doesn't prosecute the offended party sues ..
and when the results of your work are used in violation of the license you sold them with you have that right .. my life would be enhanced if my local car dealership would give me a free car .. but they don't seem to view it as an obligation ...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:51 AM on 08/02/2009

So where is the line drawn re copyright infringement?

If I walk down the street and happen to be within earshot of a band playing a concert at an entertainment centre, am I obliged to visit the ticket window and offer to pay for the music I heard?

If my neighbour has a party and plays a CD at a volume such that it can be heard from my house, am I required to send a cheque to band?

If I recommend an artist to a friend and play them a track on my ipod, have we both just infringed on the copyright?

I recently saw a local band playing at the pub up the road and they did a few cover versions of some popular songs. I guess the police and various authorities were remiss in their duties by not closing the whole place down and arresting everyone present.

In fact I think I may be distantly related to Vivaldi - restaurants and shopping centres the world over owe me money!

Incidentally, I wonder how much of Mr Tenenbaums $675 000 fine is earmarked to go to the poor suffering artists, and how much would be kept by the record company execs and lawyers???

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:05 AM on 08/02/2009
- peacekitten I'm a Fan of peacekitten 573 fans permalink
photo

all the money should go to the artists, which sadly, it will not do.

if you and your friend are listening to tunes on your ipod that one of you either paid for as a download, or put on your ipod from the CD you bought, you've paid for those tunes. but if you then take those tunes and make it possible for the whole world to take your copy and make their own, then you've violated copyright laws.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:12 AM on 08/02/2009
photo

when you purchase a recording you have purchased a license that defines your use of that recording ..

Under current US Law the estate of the artist can collect royalties for 75 years after the artists' death so you are a bit late ..

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:17 AM on 08/02/2009
- peacekitten I'm a Fan of peacekitten 573 fans permalink
photo

and not just of the recorded performance, but the printed music as well.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:27 AM on 08/02/2009
photo

I can't tell you the last time I saw a Disney add for a DVD that ended with "License a copy before it goes back into the Disney vault!"

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:29 AM on 08/02/2009

Now that made me laugh. But, you assume I'm in the US where current US Law would apply...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:49 AM on 08/02/2009
- peacekitten I'm a Fan of peacekitten 573 fans permalink
photo

those of you trying to justify your thievery, why don't you at least have the guts to own up to being a thief?

throughout history, there have been musicians who DID in fact, invent certain musical forms.

there are artists who DID invent artistic styles.

with music, it's often a collaborative effort to bring a piece of music to life. musicians from different disciplines of the art itself come together to create something, a performance.

with painting, or some of the other visual artists, it becomes an art in and of itself to create the best tools for an artist to in turn create a painting, a sculpture, an installation.

no matter how much money you pay for a performance, a painting, or any other work of art, you will never BE the performer or artist. you can pay $80 million for a van gogh, but you will never, ever, no matter what you do, be able to paint like van gogh. you can pay $500 for a ticket to see placido domingo, but you will never, ever be able to sing like domingo.

jealousy, ignorance, blindness, all these petty emotions and a few dark parts of people are the reason they refuse to acknowledge the value of these things.

but in stealing them, you will not only never be the creator of beauty, you will never be anything but a petty thief.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:04 AM on 08/02/2009
photo

So what's your point? Mathematicians discover/invent things and combine things in new inventive ways but society doesn't let them collect royalties. They don't get to charge everyone for using their theorems. What makes artists so special?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:07 AM on 08/02/2009
photo

Hint: It's the art. You know, the stuff people are interested in obtaining but unwilling to pay for.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:11 AM on 08/02/2009
photo

Correction: some people, not all, not me.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:12 AM on 08/02/2009
- peacekitten I'm a Fan of peacekitten 573 fans permalink
photo

most mathematicians and scientists are in the employ of corporations or universities who provide them with the tools to make their discoveries. unfortunately, the mathematician or scientist may end up with their name on a patent, but the institution takes all the rest for having facilitated the discovery.

i know, because my father had six patents with his name for inventions vital to the defense industry. but it was his employer that collected the hundreds of millions of dollars they were worth, while my dad was simply very well paid.

can you paint like van gogh? write music like beethoven? sing like domingo?

your last question answers itself.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:16 AM on 08/02/2009
photo

there are a plenty of copyrights in the sciences and other academic areas defended by many well payed attorneys

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:29 AM on 08/02/2009
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (13 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect