Posted on 08/01/2009 8:09:44 AM PDT by Publius804
Jury Awards $675,000 in Music Downloading Case
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Actually, excessive "statutory damages" are akin to excessive punitive damages and cause harm to society and our justice system in general.
Applying the formula used by this jury to some copyright infringement of just some common PC software which was developed by smaller companies and/or individuals that I am aware of would result in the bankruptcy of a number of Fortune 100 corporations.
Somehow I think that the courts that are willing to sustain a $675,000 verdict against some college student would be a little less comfortable with an 80 billion dollar verdict against an iconic American corporation.
I don’t feel so bad now having spent the morning in a pawn shop looking at old albums and buying a couple for $2 each.
I don’t feel so bad now having spent the morning in a pawn shop looking at old albums and buying a couple for $2 each.
Would have, could have, what if, in my mind (I’m no lawyer) are no substitute for actual proof of damages. “Hard to prove” and low actual damages are not an argument for out of proportion jury awards.
Triple damages for each file downloaded by the defendant is a just award in these cases. The defendant should pay legal fees of the plaintiff as well.
Thats exactly my point. Thanks for reinforcing. The person who makes the illegal download is responsible, not the lender. In the case in question, Tannebaum is the lender library.
It doesn't send a message. For one, the music industry has ceased going after individual downloaders. Apparently, their business plan of "suing ourselves into profitability" wasn't working so well and created something of a backlash. For another, dowloading has become so ingrained that people look at the risks the same way they do driving. Everyone drives. Sometimes people get into accidents and get killed. It sucks to be those unlucky people but I'm not going to stop driving. It's the same for downloading. Sometimes people get caught. Sucks to be them.
My personal views on downloading go something like this. I bought Exile on Main Street on LP. I bought it again on CD. I bought it a second time on CD when my first CD got scratched (after the recording industry told us that CDs were unbreakable). Now I'm suddenly stealing if I download "Rip this Joint" off the internet? I'm taking food from the mouths of MIck Jagger's children? Screw 'em.
Trying to spin a $675,000 loss as a win strains credibility.
You are certainly entitled to your views which are shared by many. However if you are caught and taken to court your excuse will be meaningless because you have broken the law. You are not excused from the law because YOU don't agree with it. This is the problem, or one of them in this country. people have somehow gotten the idea a law does not need to be followed if it is a disagreeable one to an individual. Personally if i were an artist and my work was under license, I would go after you very hard and extract the maximum amount to send a message. Your claim it does no good could not be farther from the truth. news like this spreads like wildfire and thieves being the cowards they generally are will not look for a confrontation that will cost them a ton of money. Equating this to driving a car and having an accident is nonsense because driving a car is NOT illegal.
Iv’e downloaded plenty of songs in the past but hardly any in the past 4 years.
I would say 90% of my songs are at least 20 years old.
The new stuff stinks.
You have a serious reading comprehension problem:
The "sharer" has no right to put a song out to be downloaded because he does not own the copyright.
And, many of the prosecutions have been for people with large numbers of songs on their computer which others could download. They cost record companies far more than someone who just downloads a few songs, but does not keep their computer online with many songs available for download.
Joel Tenenbaum, of Providence, R.I., admitted in court that he downloaded and distributed 30 songs.
I know. I just roll the dice. I break laws all the time. I make illegal u-turns. I talk on my cell while driving. I'll run a red light if no one is around. I download music I've already paid for three times. I'm free to take my chances and face the consequences if I'm caught.
Might be worth it if they were really, really good songs.
Yes and another problem is that there are too many damned laws, many of them just designed to enrich one class over another. In this case music copyright holders payed lobbiests big money to get lopsided laws passed. The Federal Code runs to millions of pages. The IRS codes take a bookshelf to hold. Given all this it's not surprising that people have gotten the idea that laws don't need to be followed. I refuse to be a slave. I refuse to be a slave to a man with a whip and I refuse to be a slave to Nancy Pelosi and her 534 friends. I wake up every day knowing that I'm probably going to break some laws, and I go to bed with a clean conscience having done so.
I don't rip off music because I think it's obvious theft, and as has been pointed out the .99c alternative is great.
But I certainly don't agree that I'm under a moral obligation to follow every law passed by the increasingly fascist USofA.
If I was on the jury, I'd have awarded it to him sa compensation for promoting the songs for the record companies.
If I can legally buy a song for 99 cents which wholesales for about 78 cents how is the value to the artists and record promoters total up to more than half a million dollars?
Mindless worship of the law is one of the biggest problems this country has IMO.
You certainly don’t HAVE to obey any laws. All you HAVE to do is pay the penalty, should you get caught.
Me too.
The defendant has already stated that if the verdict stands he intends to file bankruptcy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.