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 ...
I believe I also read that he was found to have downloaded (don’t know about the sharing) over 600 songs, but RIAA only charged him with 30.
I learned that from Bill and Hillary Clinton, Charlie Rangel, Ted Kennedy, et al (all of whom were Democrats, I might add).
Minimum damages are $750 per infringement. You can’t award $3.
That would actually be copyright infringement. But nice try.
That would actually be copyright infringement. But nice try.,
It's not copyright infringement if I rip my own CD, so why is it copyright infringement if I rip a loaned CD?
Even if I only listen to the library CD, I have less incentive to buy the CD, thereby depriving the of publisher income. Logically, there is no difference between a public libray and what Mr. Tennenbaum was doing.
Even assuming that it isn't copyright infringement to rip your own CD, and I don't believe there is 100% agreement on that subject--ripping the CD that someone else owned is clearly not authorized, so it is an infringement. I suppose the remaining question is whether it is fair use, and I can't see how it would be. Definitely an infringement if there is DRM on the CD--then there is no fair use defense.
Logically, there is no difference between a public libray and what Mr. Tennenbaum was doing.
Well, there is. The library is covered by the first sale doctrine, which allows the copyright holder to control only the first sale of copyrighted material. So the library can lend the materials without fear of copyright infringement, the same way that a used book store can sell books without copyright infringement.
But the first sale doctrine doesn't apply to copying or reproducing, which is what our buddy Tennenbaum was doing. The library can't make a copy of the CD in order to lend it out, and Tennenbaum can't make a copy of the CD to put on his computer.
OK, thanks for the clarification.
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.