JPF Home Page Forums General Messages General Message Forum COURT JUDGMENT

Posted on Fox News
The Supreme Court refuses to reduce a $675,000. Judgement against a Boston U. Student for downloading and sharing 30 songs over the net. You would think those Ivy League Students would know better.

Boston University is not an Ivy League college.....there are eight Ivy League colleges-but BU isnt one of them........The Ivy League consists of Brown/Columbia/Cornell/Dartmouth/Harvard/University of Pennsylvania/Princeton/ and Yale......

class dismissed

Tom

Sounds like they're making an example out of him. It's a shame one student has to pay for such a widespread epidemic.

Wondering if the student was just sharing or profiting from the infringement. I'll have to read the story later.

John

Appears he was just sharing not selling. That's ridiculously extreme. I would bet 99.99% of the younger population do similar downloads on a daily basis. You think the RIAA could find bigger targets.

Kind of scary the trouble younsters can get into on the Internet. So if he can't pay the fine, will he have to serve time in prison?

John

Monkey see monkey do?

10,000 flies eating do-do dont make it dinner for me. Being a thief isnt determined by how many people are doing it.

I hate to see anyone pay that much for music, but a line has to be drawn somewhere or the I deserve it all generation will never get the message.


Cheers
Paul

Yes (analogy), lock the insignificant drug user up, and let the drug dealers function freely.

John

I think a $500 fine is more in line with the crime, especially for a first offence. This is just grandstanding. And bullyingly choosing a subject with little means to fight back.

John

Hang 'em all from the highest tree.
Maybe they didn't have enough evidence for the other 500 songs he thought he got away with.
Maybe the fine pays for the prosecution costs. Now there's another bit of theivery.

Vic

Some food for thought...


"Tenenbaum’s lawyers said a 2008 study estimated that the average teenager illegally downloaded 800 songs, which would expose that person to damages of as much as $120 million. Multiplied by the number of people sued by the recording industry, the maximum damage amount would reach $1.5 trillion"

“This pernicious interpretation of the Copyright Act transforms every bit of cyberspace into a potentially exploding lawsuit and is sparking the development of a spam-litigation industry,” Tenenbaum’s lawyers said in his high court appeal.

Be careful folks, this could very well be the beginning of the end to the free Internet. For some reason, Brian's May 6th blog "The Internet and new music delivery systems" comes to mind.

John

If any one thinks that the judgment rendered is any where in line with the actual crime then they are nuts (that's a fact, not an opinion). When judgments become that far out of whack, then the law needs to be changed. It wouldn't surprise me to see us lose all copyright protection, if that's what the RIAA wants to try and collect.

I agree it is against the law, but with the RIAA leading the way, maybe we should just abolish the whole copyright thing all together.

This judgement may be way out of line but well inside the pervue of copyright. Perhaps a $1000.00 fine and 30 days in Jail would have been a better judgement. Copyright Law may need to be re-written or amended for that to be a remedy. There may have been more to the case than we will hear about. And a final appeal may give a more realistic final judgment. This student needs to read more Beatle Bailey and study Sargeant Snorkels methods! Beatle is still at it however! I vote for Sargent Snorkel's Methods!

There's a good chance he'll never pay a penny of the fine. These cases often get discharged through bankruptcy from what I'm told.

Yes, $1,000 fine is more reasonable. Don't think jail time is applicable in this civil case. Not sure though...

John

How do they justify the money they are asking for? If 30 songs were distributed by one guy, at $1 a song, he would have to distribute all those songs to 23,600 people. And they would have to make the ridiculous assumption that all those people would have otherwise bought the songs. More likely he distributed to a dozen friends so the actual loss to the Record company is probably more like $300, again assuming they would have otherwise bought the song. In reality, maybe 1 or 2 would have. So the Record company lost say $1.50- oh but wait, they wouldn't have told their friends about it if our enemy # 1 hadn't sent it to them. Maybe they owe him money.

Good points Samuel. I also doubt very many of these downloads would've equated to record company sales.

John

I am a little surprised at the attitudes shown here.
Copyright infringement is a CRIME. It hurts everyone in the business of creating intellectual material. It doesn't matter if it was one song or fifty songs it is still a theft of some one's property.
The laws were written for a reason and the fact that everyone in the business of making music is losing Billions of dollars is a indication of the the reason for the laws.

If the guy was sharing those songs on a fileshare network he may very well have shared them with Thousands of users. Those users would also share those files to thousands of users. Each song could easily have been stolen by 20,000 30,000 or more people.

The argument that the people probably would not have bought the songs anyway is simply wrong. That's like saying shoplifters wouldn't have bought what they stole so why punish them for it. How about car thieves?

Here is what the penalty is for ONE copyright infringement.

In a civil suit, an infringer may be liable for a copyright owner's actual damages plus any profits made from the infringement. Alternatively, the copyright owner may avoid proving actual damage by electing a statutory damage recovery of up to $30,000 or, where the court determines that the infringement occurred willfully, up to $150,000. The actual amount will be based upon what the court in its discretion considers just. (17 U.S.C. 504)

Violation of copyright law is also considered a federal crime when done willfully with an intent to profit. Criminal penalties include up to ten years imprisonment depending on the nature of the violation. (No Electronic Theft Act, 18 U.S.C. 2319)

And I do not think Bankruptcy removes a civil judgement. He will owe that money til the day he dies. He will never be able to buy anything on credit or get a Mortgage.

Good for the System. The thief got what he deserves.

Any song that you want to listen to and copy can be found on Youtube. What's the difference?

I just don't like the idea of making a sacrificial lamb out of this kid or opening up a "spam-litigation industry" where the lawyers will be the big winners.

The "shoplifting" analogy doesn't really hold up. The Internet is a new frontier, different than anything ever dealt with - bringing the retailer and his product (Intellectual property) into everyone's home.

BTW, if I purchase a hard copy book, I can legally pass that on to a friend(s) to enjoy for free. Maybe another poor analogy?

Short of taxing the Internet servers (and the extra costs handed down to the users), I don't have any answers. Though we all know the corruption involved in distributing tax dollars.

John

I'm with John here. The penalty doesn't seem to fit the crime! The boy seems used in a headless vandetta..

I can guarantee if any one of you had your copyrighted material stolen you would be after the highest settlement you could get. I can't understand this way of thinking. Just because it's a big corporation you think it wrong to prosecute this crime.
Entitlements anyone?
Why not just say the hell with it and make it illegal to sell your material. You must just give it away. You must make it available free of charge to anyone who wants it.
People don't commit crimes for one reason. Fear of punishment if they get caught. Take away the deterrent and there will be no stopping the thieves.



No. You cannot. You have purchased the book, or do you intend on stealing it?
You can pass along the actual book to one person to read. That is legal. But you cannot make and keep a copy of it for yourself. You can even read it aloud to a stadium full of 50,000 people. But you cannot give a copy of the book to them.

You cannot make copies of the book and give it to anyone.
That is what a COPYRIGHT protects against. ILLEGAL copying of the book.

As far as the punishment not fitting the crime goes? Well the punishment is written in law. Our Nation's laws. We have established punishments for crimes. That is what he got. If you don't like it then change the law.
If you don't want people being punished for stealing Copyrighted material then do away with copyrights altogether.

Bill,

I was referring to a "hard copy" because it exists physically, whereas a soft copy exists only electronically. Not of actually copying a book and passing them on to friends. Which I agree would be stealing.

John

When people "share" song files, they actually make an electronic copy of the file. It is copying, otherwise the person who "shared" it could no longer play it themselves.

I don't quite understand John.
Are you saying it's ok to steal the music because it isn't a "hard copy"?
I don't think you mean it that way but I do not make any distinction between a "hard Copy" vs a "Soft Copy"

We all agree it is ok to listen to songs on the radio. You can listen to the song a million times and don't pay for it. But someone does.

If a Book is posted online you can read it as many times as you want.
I am not sure how these e-books work. Do you have to pay for the books.

If so, do you think it would be ok for this guy to steal the book online and then pass around copies of it to all his friends?

I guess I just can't see the logic of saying it is ok to steal one thing and not another thing. And I don't understand anyone defending this guy for his crime.

"I don't quite understand John. Are you saying it's ok to steal the music because it isn't a "hard copy"?- Bill

Of course not Bill. I was just clarifying that I didn't mean "making copies of a book" as you misinterpreted this: "BTW, if I purchase a hard copy book, I can legally pass that on to a friend(s) to enjoy for free. Maybe another poor analogy?"

Both a hard copy or a soft copy is equally wrong to steal.

John

My point is that when the punishment far outstrips the crime -- then the law is unjust and needs to be changed. Penalties like this will lead to the dismantling of copyright protection not an enhancement of copyright protection.

I am for intellectual property protection more than most -- my software was stolen, de-compiled and used by a former company that did sales for me back in 1990. It cost me $25,000 to get basically nothing back. I want protection. But if a penalty for a crime is going to ruin someone for life, I think we need to step back and say "whoa, This ain't right".

No one is arguing that it is not a crime, just that the penalties were drawn up in a different era and don't match the crime in question.

I think drug laws are meant to protect society -- but all I see is a ballooning prison population with no positive effects for society.

BTW, I'm not defending this guy for his crime. But don't like the extreme punishment both in monetary and selective character assassination (the sacrificial lamb approach).

I would make a wager that many of the people on the prosecuting side have teens that download music illegally on a daily basis.

It's time to find a solution to this illegal downloading, rather than selectively bullying a couple kids.

John

Well I guess we agree in principle. But I don't think I would say this is a "Kid" if he is in college. He is an adult and I am sure he was well aware he was committing a crime.

Ahh Kevin
Drug laws.

IMHO punishing the suppliers is the wrong approach. Punish the users and the suppliers will go away.
Drug test for EVERY job. drug test for welfare, food stamps and make it legal for an employer to do random drug testing.
As long as we tolerate drug use it will never go away so if we are not going to fix it, legalize it but allow employers to drug test and give them the right to refuse employment to anyone who uses drugs.

Why do I believe that?

I was an employer. I could ALWAYS tell when the guys were using. The quality of the work fell off dramatically. I would very often have to tear it apart and rebuild it. That's a fact.
If someone wants to do drugs that is their choice but I should not have to hire them.

I think this file sharing of music is pretty much the same thing.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Bill, once upon a time I would have agreed with you but the cat jumped out of the bag years ago and he's not getting back in. We now have a new music industry paradigm. Songs are free now. There is no copyright protection because it is impossible to enforce. The only way to make money is to go on tour, attach the song to a movie score or television. The judgement against this graduate student is meant to scare those who do peer to peer music sharing. But it is the music industry that is scared. The music industry probably started worrying about what technology would mean for their industry when tape started replacing vinyl in the 70's. Only a few people copied 8 track cartridges but the cassette tape recorder was the volley across the bow of the music industry. By the time CD's became recordable, the music money makers were sweating. They didn't know it then but the ship was fatally damaged. When internet file sharing became easy, the water was over the bow and the ship was going down. The music executives are watching the Titanic break in half and sink to the bottom and it's not coming back up.

It isn't just music. You should see how scared the education industry is right now. There is a movement for Open Access for education that has the textbook distributors panicking. Large prestigious universities like Harvard and Stanford are allowing anyone to enroll in some on-line classes with completely free access to textbooks if you read them on line. You still get the option to buy a hard copy, or a bound hard copy, or a color bound hard copy. You pay accordingly. In the same way you can buy a nicely labeled CD with printed lyrics and nice graphics.

I think this is the price we pay, as songwriters, for the new "openness". Having spent years believing our great song, and a break, might bring us riches, now we understand that even our finely crafted smash hit still won't bring us much more than a pat on the back and a chance to meet a celebrity or two.

But I say so be it. We have access to all the knowledge and music and culture the web has to offer. Would we be willing to rein it all in just for the sake of copyright protection? It would be a sad day if, for the sake of copyright protection, we lost all open access to music, information, news and art. It would feel like a return to the dark ages.

Very well said Samuel! Thanks for putting this all in perspective.

John

And this is one way the artist and songwriters are compensated because if you get enough hits then paid sponsors play a little ad; and the owner of the music video get a percentage- Google gets the rest. That is like broadcast television. We watch for free (we think) but in reality our eyeballs are being sold to advertisers. We, the viewers are the commodity being sold to the sponsors. Maybe in the future all song files will have ads attached to them and you can't listen unless you listen to the ad. Pandora is already like that. Since the FCC dropped a content to advertisement ratio limit, Radio sells so many ads that it sometimes exceeds the content. Television use to have a commercial limit. A station could lose it's license if it violated the limit. Now- station managers will play as many commercials as they think the audience will tolerate.

I feel sorry for the guy, and maybe the fine is excessive, but If it puts the scare into the heads of kids that think it is okay to steal music, well, I'm not losing any sleep over it. I mean, if one can download a song for a buck, there is no excuse not to pay for it.

One good thing about digital, now every song has to be good, not just two or three on a CD. This has had the effect of more artists adding covers ( of good songs to make every song on the CD good ) to their CDs, so this is good for songwriters.


Added: In retrospect, the fine is excessive, really, it is.

I have mixed feelings on this whole subject. I of course am against theft in any shape or form but also sympathise with the kid who IMO was punished way way in excess of the crime.... after all he was only doing what most other kids do.
Musicians have been victims of theft from every avenue and for a very long time. Not just from file-sharers but by the industry moguls and empresarios since the ability to record anything was invented. Even before that they were ripped off by promoters and agents who always retain the lions share of all moneys made from music. Few musicians make any real money from their craft compared to the fat cats who run the industry and whose say counts for everything. They will always make tons of money regardless. Let us not loose sight of the ball.......The kids who share files are not the real villains here. It is the corrupt industry itself.

Exactly how I think about this Jim.

John

As long as we tolerate prohibition on drug use we will have drug wars on our streets and borders, gangs supporting their terror with profits from drug sales, the unkowing being shot by random gunfire from gang members over turf wars to protect high drug traffic areas from rival gangs... Prohibition on drugs is bullsh*t as far as Im concern, just a moral mandate of the time we live in, not to mention all the money down the drain to fight prosecute and incarcerated. Its not the same issue as stealing from someone.

Cheers
Paul

Paul,

I am in favor of de-criminalization for most illicit drug use. However, if a private business owner wants employees with a "clean" system to work in their business, then they should have that right.

Having folks with a clean system is also a reasonable requirement to accept public assistance. Everyone has a choice.

Kevin

I spent years as a pot head. Additionally, I took more other drugs than Charlie Sheen. It cost me a lot of money, lost me work, trashed my voice and made me forget lyrics...sometimes during important shows. I loved pot while I was smoking it, after a while I loved it more than music. Then God freed me from it. I got back my voice, started getting better work, make more money but still have memory lapses. I now love God more than pot or music.

I believe marijuana should be treated like alcohol. Legal but with very stiff penalties for selling it to minors. There should be penalties for giving it to minors also. I agree with Kevin that businesses should have the right to test their employees. I don't think public assistance should be concerned with anything legal. As for food assistance...I don't even think you should be able to buy potato chips, soda pop or candy with food assistance, certainly not booze. However any illegal drugs should be cause for dropping assistance, so if they don't legalize pot...test.

I think free music is a drug. It gets people addicted.

I agree that terms of employment should be able to screen for drug use, and a business owner should be able refuse to employ anyone they deem not suitable based on the results.

Im in favor of all drugs being legal, not just some. The school of thought that people would use drugs if they were legal seems to over look the fact that legal or not, people are using drugs, or the thought that young kids would use them, they already are. We do know this, prohibition on drugs for a fact is causing people to go from alive to dead because of a drug war that all involved deem unwinnable. Injecting a moral objection to drug use doesnt make since to me, if you oblect to drug use, dont use them. I feel the best tool to combat just about any social issue is education, not prohibition, anytime you outlaw something you create a class of outlaws, and a blackmarket. How does that profit us as a society?

Just my thoughts...

Cheers
Paul

I think it's like a speed limit. Just because many, many people break it does not mean it's a good idea to remove it. Heroin is particularly insidious, as is crack and meth. I don't think they should be legal

I have never taken any illegal substance but know a lot of folk who do.......it scrambles their brains.......end of discussion.
Whilst nobody has the answer to rid us of this curse that ruins the lives of our loved ones we all know that something has to be done....and quick. One thing for sure we do know that prison, fines and any other punishments made simply do not work. There are more drugs inside prison than possibly outside and around 90% of prison populations are addicts who re-offend. Rehab also fails in nearly all cases. Methadone only masks the addiction and cravings and doctors say it is actuallymore habit forming, harmful and addictive with worse side effects that the drugs it replaces. Education and zero tolerance resulting in peer pressure might go some way to prevent folk taking drugs initially...when a thing becomse accepted as uncool less people are tempted...but I think self respect and having a job and a decent standard of living will do the most good to help rid us of the problem.
I remember the days when drug taking was rare. few people knew anybody who took drugs...now the opposite applies we all know lots of folk who are addicted.

Alcohol is far worse than heroin.
No evidence showing a speed limit prevents anything other than a shorter trip.

Cheers
Paul

Addiction is a mental health issue not a moral deficiency, employment, standard of living, or seeing a drug as cool or not cool are not deciding factors.

Allowing people to use a dangerous drug like alcohol and placing a prohibition on other drugs makes no sense to me.
THIS LINE CRACKS ME UP
"I have never taken any illegal substance but know a lot of folk who do.......it scrambles their brains.......end of discussion."
You really have no idea what you are talking about do ya Jim. Your personal experience with folks around you does not apply to all so end of discussion only indicates a closed mind not an educated statement, or informed for that matter.

Cheers
Paul


Cheers
Paul

Sorry Paul it is you who do not seem to understand. It is attitudes like yours that perpetuates the problem and confuses this issue. People start to take drink or drugs simply because their peers do. Many of the reasons you seem to dismiss as not applicable are actually the root causes.....not because they have mental problems or a predisposition first...the mental problems associated with addicts are as a direct result and side effect of taking the drugs.
I agree that in some cases alcohol can be worse than heroin or other drugs. That said the vast majority of responsible people can have a beer or two or a glass of wine now and again safely without doing their moind or body any harm....it is those clowns who binge drink who have the problem...and again it is down to education and peer pressure to make this phenomena a taboo. Evidence has shown that legalisation or even prohibition of alcohol or drugs does nothing to diminish the problem. The only thing that might work is education and a change of attitudes to what is and what is not acceptable behavior.....we cannot send out the wrong messages to our young and impressionable.
Addiction IS a moral issue.....and should be higher on the agenda of things to eradicate from any society.

I'll probably ruffle some feathers here, but...

Often people take drugs and drink alcohol to extreme to blur out reality. These people are unhappy with life and can't cope with it. So they drown it out using drugs and alcohol. Show me a drunk, and I’ll show you a person that hates life.

John

I agree John 100%......so if people have a job, a decent standard of living and an education.......there would be less junkies and alcoholics.....Also if it is not cool to be drunk then guess what?...... less people would be tempted.

Humm,
It is beginning to sound like Big *** is becoming a Consevative! Maybe the world is coming to and in December after all. Batton down the hatches!!!

Sorry to burst your bubble Ray.....it is the greedy Conservatives who cause these social problems by not providing enough jobs with a decent wage and in turn this creates poor living standards......which forces low esteem.......therby driving the disgruntled populace to take drink and drugs.
I have been called many things in my time but never a Conservative.

I know, I know,
Archie Campbell once asked an employer hao much he would pay. The employer replied, Well. I will pay you what you are worth. Archie thought for a minute and said, No, won't work for that. I'm sorry i'm one of those Greedy rich people. Well, I'm greedy anyway.

I heard yesterday, there are only 300 people in the U.S. that are worth a million or more. Maybe they have all moved to China. Heave Ho, Big ***.

There are not three people in the whole world worth a million.

I would love to be paid what I am worth instead of what I HAVE to accept.

Still when folk are starving to death or dying of preventable disease cause they cannot afford a $3 mosquito net or get clean drinking water it brings a whole new meaning to being poor....and a whole new meaning to being a greedy conservative.

I'm back. Quite a dicussion going on here.

It does seem like a lot of money to pay for stealing a few songs, but they have to make the fine high enough as a deterrent because the chance of being caught is so low. If the fine was very low more people would be doing it. The high fine makes many people think twice before doing it. I think the fine should stay high, but for first offenders, they should have to pay only ten percent up front, with the remainder staying on the books as forgivable as long as they never do it again. If they do it again and get caught, they will be lible for double this amount.

Every day we take in toxins through food we eat, water we drink and air we breathe, it can't be helped in today's society. But our bodies are equiped with several filtering systems that take most of this toxins out of our bodies. Why anyone would deliberatety take in extra poisons into their body through drugs, alcohol and tobacco, is beyond me.These extra poisons will overwhelm their filtering system and they will suffer the effects. But man is self destructive anyway. He proves that over and over every day, just look at the speeders on our highways.

"If the fine was very low more people would be doing it. The high fine makes many people think twice before doing it" - Everette

One would think on the surface that makes sense Everett. However, the realty is quite different. Can you think of a more severe penalty than death for people that commit murder?

That being said, all the states in the USA without the death penalty have lower murder rates.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/det...have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

Human beings aren't always rational people. Many think their dastardly deeds will go unpunished and undiscovered.

Best, John