30 songs cost student €473,000

Otis Driftwood

A US student has been ordered to pay $675,000 (€473K) to four music companies for breaking copyright laws after sharing music online.

Joel Tenenbaum from Boston University admitted in court that he had downloaded and distributed 30 songs.

The jury ordered Mr Tenebaum to pay €22,500 (€15,700) for each infringement.

The jury could have awarded a maximum of €4.5m (€3.15m) in the case.

It is the second such case to go to trial in the US.

Last month, a woman in Minneapolis was ordered to pay almost €2 million (€1.4m) for copyright infringement.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0801/downloads.html

Holy sheit on a shingle.

Whenever I hear anything like this I cannot help but think of the South Park episode when the cop brings the boys to Lars Ulrich's house.

Busi_Girl08

I am just waiting for the day that James Hetfield smashed through my window and fly kicks me to the ground....:cool:

TPD

I dont see why they bother giving such ridiculous fines to people who they know cant pay them.

jebuz

I hope somebody gets fired for those currency conversions

Ross_Mahon

Napster bad! Metallica good!

MagicMarker

It's retarded, if they're going to throw out those kind of fines then at least go after someone who uploads thousands upon thousands of tracks.

Personally, I don't see any difference between this or taping songs off the radio, or recording movies onto video tape/dvd.

TPD

MagicMarker wrote: »

Personally, I don't see any difference between this or taping songs off the radio, or recording movies onto video tape/dvd.

I dont think they like you doing either of them things.

MagicMarker

The Perfect Drug wrote: »

I dont think they like you doing either of them things.

No one ever got fined half a mill for it though, even though it's been done for decades.

ciano1

Wow

Those songs were a bigger rip off than Itunes!

TPD

MagicMarker wrote: »

No one ever got fined half a mill for it though, even though it's been done for decades.

Radio and television dont have quite the traceability of the internet. I'm sure they would have sued left right and centre if they could find any moderately hard evidence.

mink_man

bit ironic that his name was Mr. Tenebaum

Rented Mule

They were really good songs.

MagicMarker

MagicMarker wrote: »

Personally, I don't see any difference between this or taping songs off the radio, or recording movies onto video tape/dvd.

Or making a site called bords.ie

Red Alert

Record companies (and their apologists like IMRO/IRMA) aren't necessary anymore.... who thought this was a fair sentence?

Sabre0001

The Perfect Drug wrote: »

I dont see why they bother giving such ridiculous fines to people who they know cant pay them.

Because they generate publicity...And people talk about it. If people start thinking of the comeback, they may not share (after all, it's the sharing that is being clamped down more on) - you cut off the source, you cut off the problem.

Yes, there are other ways to share...but this is how they clamp down on the mass distribution online.

blubloblu

You know you need to change something when you need to scare your customers into buying your products. "BUY CDS OR ELSE GET FINED HALF A MILLION"

projectmayhem

Red Alert wrote: »

Record companies (and their apologists like IMRO/IRMA) aren't necessary anymore.... who thought this was a fair sentence?

I'm assuming the fine is partly because the courts decide to not fine for the 30 songs downloaded by the one offender, but his enabling of others to re-download the songs again and again.

It is ridiculous though.

**Timbuk2**

I buy all music on iTunes - I believe artists should be paid for their songs.

But I can understand the motives behind file sharing. iTunes charge a euro for a song which can only be played in iTunes. Surely if you paid for the song, you have the right to do with it what you like, providing you don't distribute it.

Also, sometimes songs are available illegally long before they are available for legal download (e.g. Taio Cruz - Break Your Heart)

jester77

So, i presume these fines are passed onto the artists who's songs were downloaded :rolleyes:

Pygmalion

€22,500 for each song, which probably would've cost like a euro each on iTunes.

Is there nothing in America against cruel and excessive punishments?

Even if you argue that it's the same as stealing, having to pay back 22,500 times what you took would surely be considered excessive?

Edit: Actually I realise now that the fine was probably for uploading as well as downloading, so that might be different, but I'd still say it's extremely excessive.

Busi_Girl08

mink_man wrote: »

bit ironic that his name was Mr. Tenebaum

Eh...how?

seanybiker

that amount for 30 songs. Going by that I would have to pay billions upon billions.

TPD

Sabre0001 wrote: »

Because they generate publicity...And people talk about it. If people start thinking of the comeback, they may not share (after all, it's the sharing that is being clamped down more on) - you cut off the source, you cut off the problem.

Yes, there are other ways to share...but this is how they clamp down on the mass distribution online.

They generate negative publicity if anything. The big bad record companies going after poor students and single mothers.

Can you be arrested for just downloading songs, ie not sharing them? If so the fine must be minimal, they couldnt charge too much more than what the song costs.

dny123456

just making an example of him i think.... poor fecker.

thomond2006

nedtheshed wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0801/downloads.html

That's just retarded.

Gummy Panda

**Timbuk2** wrote: »

I buy all music on iTunes - I believe artists should be paid for their songs.

But I can understand the motives behind file sharing. iTunes charge a euro for a song which can only be played in iTunes. Surely if you paid for the song, you have the right to do with it what you like, providing you don't distribute it.

Also, sometimes songs are available illegally long before they are available for legal download (e.g. Taio Cruz - Break Your Heart)

iTunes has removed most of the DRM now. Its all iTunes plus i believe. You can convert the file to mp3 if you want. I remember Apple saying they had the DRM cause record companies wouldn't accept DRM free songs for as low as 99c.

ofc things change and now Apple is a market leader.

galwayrush

Feck, i know people who owe billions going on those rates.:eek:

netwhizkid

I am a firm believer that such downloading will never go away and tbh it is not something that is as prevalent as they make out, the reason people download is a) music and movies are a rip off b) it is available surely they should eliminate the sources not the downloader. Drug Addicts are not the cause of the scourge of Drugs but Drug Dealers similar situation.

I believe the Irish government should implement a download licence of between €50 to €100/year on a similar basis to the TV licence allowing people to take what they want from the net (bar sickos with child porno etc.) just simply legalise it and distribute the money for building faster networks and give a share to the major record labels and movie studios etc.

This way people are happy and those currently effected get money whereas they will get nothing as it stands. The hackers and crackers will always be a step ahead and getting rid of filesharing and warez etc. will never happen it can however become a money spinner for effected parties this way.

As an example I know a fella who took a copy+key of an anti virus programme from the net and was so impressed with its capabilities that he bought the programme as his illegal key was blocked after a week and he now installs it (with bought keys) on his clients machines and has generated a few hundred already this year for the company wheras he would not have paid to test out the software as is the current situation.

I would gladly pay for a download licence and tbh would most serious downloaders who may already pay for things like premium Rapidshare, Deposit Files and faster torrents. Then nail any fecker downloading without his licence.

Pygmalion

netwhizkid wrote: »

I am a firm believer that such downloading will never go away and tbh it is not something that is as prevalent as they make out, the reason people download is a) music and movies are a rip off b) it is available surely they should eliminate the sources not the downloader. Drug Addicts are not the cause of the scourge of Drugs but Drug Dealers similar situation.

I believe the Irish government should implement a download licence of between €50 to €100/year on a similar basis to the TV licence allowing people to take what they want from the net (bar sickos with child porno etc.) just simply legalise it and distribute the money for building faster networks and give a share to the major record labels and movie studios etc.

This way people are happy and those currently effected get money whereas they will get nothing as it stands. The hackers and crackers will always be a step ahead and getting rid of filesharing and warez etc. will never happen it can however become a money spinner for effected parties this way.

As an example I know a fella who took a copy+key of an anti virus programme from the net and was so impressed with its capabilities that he bought the programme as his illegal key was blocked after a week and he now installs it (with bought keys) on his clients machines and has generated a few hundred already this year for the company wheras he would not have paid to test out the software as is the current situation.

I would gladly pay for a download licence and tbh would most serious downloaders who may already pay for things like premium Rapidshare, Deposit Files and faster torrents. Then nail any fecker downloading without his licence.

Problem is that if it's optional then it would be fairly hard to enforce, needs collaboration with ISPs, and encrypting your traffic would stop them knowing what you download, just where you're downloading from.

If it's not optional it would cause outrage for people who actually don't download much/any and would hate the thought of being forced to pay for something they don't use.

Also it would be unfair to smaller, independent artists or record labels, who let's face it, would get nothing from this.

The Volt

Exactly how much does the average band actually get from record sales anyway? Labels have been exploiting bands for years and this is payback

That_Guy

The Perfect Drug wrote: »

I dont think they like you doing either of them things.

Then why are they still allowed to sell the devices that allow this to happen?

Flawed.

Pygmalion

Voltwad wrote: »

Exactly how much does the average band actually get from record sales anyway? Labels have been exploiting bands for years and this is payback

I believe it's as low as 8% in some places, and the RIAA (The group who have been "standing up for the artists" by suing college students) has actually been trying to get it lowered, because despite all their talk about how artists are losing money due to piracy, they evidently think their overpaid by the record companies.

Run_to_da_hills

There is so much music floating around these days on hard drives that people don't need to download anymore. This is only going to encourage ghosting drive contents amongst each other.

Wagon

Pygmalion wrote: »

I believe it's as low as 8% in some places, and the RIAA (The group who have been "standing up for the artists" by suing college students) has actually been trying to get it lowered, because despite all their talk about how artists are losing money due to piracy, they evidently think their overpaid by the record companies.

I think the majority of artists don't give a crap how you get the music once you enjoy it. Bands make their money and names doing live gigs. That's where the cash is.

I fully support downloading. We've been getting ripped off for many years for music and with the rise of the internet and easy transfer of information, who needs record companies?

Put it this way: just because you own a Ferrari doesn't mean your a good driver. Just because you have a record deal doesn't mean your a good musician. Turn on the radio for proof.

Kolo

I downloaded a few albums before, but felt bad. It's stealing music, no matter what way you look at it. I've bought the albums since

Run_to_da_hills

Wagon wrote: »

I think the majority of artists don't give a crap how you get the music once you enjoy it. Bands make their money and names doing live gigs. That's where the cash is.

The reason why so many artists have got up off their asses and started touring, including Michael Jackson.

SoWatchaWant

The Perfect Drug wrote: »

I dont see why they bother giving such ridiculous fines to people who they know cant pay them.

Deterrent? Doubt they're gonna get blood from a stone, but the idea is, some people will read about that lad and go, "guess I shouldn't upload, I should probably just buy my music instead".

Ostrom

Ross_Mahon wrote: »

Napster bad! Metallica good!

Beer good!

Pygmalion

SoWatchaWant wrote: »

Deterrent? Doubt they're gonna get blood from a stone, but the idea is, some people will read about that lad and go, "guess I shouldn't upload, I should probably just buy my music instead".

But I imagine it turns quite a lot of people against them when they just pick some randomer and plunge him/her into bankruptcy over what is far, far less than what the average person downloads. (30 songs? I've downloaded at least 5000 I'd say).

Kolo

**Timbuk2** wrote: »

I buy all music on iTunes - I believe artists should be paid for their songs.

But I can understand the motives behind file sharing. iTunes charge a euro for a song which can only be played in iTunes. Surely if you paid for the song, you have the right to do with it what you like, providing you don't distribute it.

Also, sometimes songs are available illegally long before they are available for legal download (e.g. Taio Cruz - Break Your Heart)

I-tunes is terrible. My mate downloaded a film on it onto the i-phone. then found out it couldn't be played on the computer. Bought another copy on i-tunes through the PC. That wouldn't work so he had to download it illegally!
Music on i-tunes is very expensive.

fryup

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

There is so much music floating around these days on hard drives that people don't need to download anymore. This is only going to encourage ghosting drive contents amongst each other.

ghosting drive contents ?? ......what is this

yoyo

fryup wrote: »

ghosting drive contents ?? ......what is this

Making a 1 on 1 copy of the drive to another, I persume he means people will get their downloading m8s to duplicate their hard drives onto an external drive for them or something, Ghosting drives is making a full copy of one to be put on another

Nick

blubloblu

**Timbuk2** wrote: »

I buy all music on iTunes - I believe artists should be paid for their songs

Yer doin it wrong.

Coriolanus

File for bankruptcy, he's a student, zero or minimal income to show so...

Yeah.

onq

nedtheshed wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0801/downloads.html

Holy sheit on a shingle.

Whenever I hear anything like this I cannot help but think of the South Park episode when the cop brings the boys to Lars Ulrich's house.

Isn't it amazing what Courts will protect?

The income of all those boozers and liggers in the Music industry.

ONQ

blubloblu

Remember kids, when you buy music, most of the money goes towards the labels that are suing your friends.

http://www.riaaradar.com

Run_to_da_hills

Nevore wrote: »

File for bankruptcy, he's a student, zero or minimal income to show so...

Yeah.

Dosen't work that way in the ststes, they will be on his tail for the rest of his life, Same goes for those that try to dodge the micky money. It will come out of his income for as long as he lives.

Coriolanus

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Dosen't work that way in the ststes, they will be on his tail for the rest of his life, Same goes for those that try to dodge the micky money. It will come out of his income for as long as he lives.

Ouch. Poor sob.

Run_to_da_hills

Nevore wrote: »

Ouch. Poor sob.

He should take up dealing

blubloblu

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

He should take up dealing

Sell pirated CDs to pay his fine.

Coriolanus

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

He should take up dealing

Rofl. If I had that hanging over my head, it'd be that or leave the country!