3 ms·

In the Capitol Records case, the jury ordered Tenenbaum to pay $675,000 to several record companies for illegally downloading and distributing 30 of their songs

In the Capitol Records case, the jury ordered Tenenbaum to pay $675,000 to several record companies for illegally downloading and distributing 30 of their songs. ##and distributing## There's a monstrous difference here that we should be working nonstop to educate people about. If we can't get people to understand the difference between simply downloading, and becoming part of the distribution network, we are never going to have a meaningful debate. Both sides will seem completely irrational to each other.

Luc 17y ago
I'm not sure this is the same case I have heard of before, but let's assume this person was torrenting some popular songs. How much does it matter that he was distributing and not just downloading, if there were hundreds of others seeding at the same time? Other downloaders would have been inconvenienced just very slightly by him not being there. Did his contribution lead to an appreciable number of extra downloads, or did it just help the same number of pirates download faster? With which I just mean to say that there are gradations in distribution...
- noonespecial 17y ago
  That's actually so good I'm just going to repeat it: With which I just mean to say that there are gradations in distribution That's exactly what this whole thing is missing. No one has stopped to calculate what the impact (in monetary damages, even hypothetically on the download==lost sale metric) of a bittorrent client running for x days at home connection upload speed.
chrisbolt 17y ago
$675,000 divided by $1.29 comes out to 523,255 copies distributed, which is ludicrous.
- noonespecial 17y ago
  $38.70 is also ludicrous, but for the opposite reason. We can't get to the place where we start to ask "how many copies were reasonably distributed and what might the actual damage be?" until we clarify what the actual accusation is. To the typical user, who thinks that all that is in question is $40 worth of downloads, $20,000 and $200,000 are equally ridiculous damage demands.
  - protomyth 17y ago
    I used $38.70 as the basis for what would have been bought. Most damages are based on something lost. How many seeds got data from the defendant? Is there some number that can be arrived at? I am not sure, I just don't think the amount of damage of the fine is reasonable.
    - noonespecial 17y ago
      I am not sure, I just don't think the amount of damage of the fine is reasonable. Of course not. Its so off the charts irrational, batshit-insane is about the only description that fits. I'm just saying that until we get to the place where everyone understands that the real meat of the accusation is mass distribution, we won't have a meaningful dialog about what actual damages might be. Until then its just 3vi1-R144 vs. p1rat3z and most people will just believe that its all about "stealing" $20 worth of Britney Spears.
      - protomyth 17y ago
        I understand the distribution, but I think some of the problem is the difference between distribution with intent to profit and distribution as part of getting the data. One is the intent at committing a criminal act for profit; the other is consequences of the technology means for committing a single criminal act.
dantheman 17y ago
But they do not know how much he has distributed. How much should he pay if he distributed 1 song, 100 songs, 10000 songs? Shouldn't Capital Records say how many songs were distributed & that be tied to the verdict?
pbhjpbhj 17y ago
Except that using bit torrent is considered distribution automatically. Actual distribution is not shown. I'd consider that using bt to get a copy of a recording you own (backup, format shifting) would be pretty close to fair use in the USA and certainly not immoral. If this were considered then even showing distribution would not necessarily show tortuous malfeasance. However, being practical, a proper measure of the data distributed should be made using the available evidence. For example, the copyright holder can show the recording was available for 1 day and the ISP can confirm that the uploaded data that day was 1Gb (my broadband connection maxed for 6 hours). This would yield a potential upload of about 150 tracks of 5MB. Assuming the tracks are 50p each then the maximum possible amount is about £75. Now apply whatever factor has historically been used in damages for those who sell bootleg CDs in the street and voila. A few hundred pounds at most. Equivalent to a very large speeding ticket.

Luc 17y ago

I'm not sure this is the same case I have heard of before, but let's assume this person was torrenting some popular songs. How much does it matter that he was distributing and not just downloading, if there were hundreds of others seeding at the same time? Other downloaders would have been inconvenienced just very slightly by him not being there. Did his contribution lead to an appreciable number of extra downloads, or did it just help the same number of pirates download faster? With which I just mean to say that there are gradations in distribution...

noonespecial 17y ago
That's actually so good I'm just going to repeat it: With which I just mean to say that there are gradations in distribution That's exactly what this whole thing is missing. No one has stopped to calculate what the impact (in monetary damages, even hypothetically on the download==lost sale metric) of a bittorrent client running for x days at home connection upload speed.

chrisbolt 17y ago

$675,000 divided by $1.29 comes out to 523,255 copies distributed, which is ludicrous.

noonespecial 17y ago
$38.70 is also ludicrous, but for the opposite reason. We can't get to the place where we start to ask "how many copies were reasonably distributed and what might the actual damage be?" until we clarify what the actual accusation is. To the typical user, who thinks that all that is in question is $40 worth of downloads, $20,000 and $200,000 are equally ridiculous damage demands.
- protomyth 17y ago
  I used $38.70 as the basis for what would have been bought. Most damages are based on something lost. How many seeds got data from the defendant? Is there some number that can be arrived at? I am not sure, I just don't think the amount of damage of the fine is reasonable.
  - noonespecial 17y ago
    I am not sure, I just don't think the amount of damage of the fine is reasonable. Of course not. Its so off the charts irrational, batshit-insane is about the only description that fits. I'm just saying that until we get to the place where everyone understands that the real meat of the accusation is mass distribution, we won't have a meaningful dialog about what actual damages might be. Until then its just 3vi1-R144 vs. p1rat3z and most people will just believe that its all about "stealing" $20 worth of Britney Spears.
    - protomyth 17y ago
      I understand the distribution, but I think some of the problem is the difference between distribution with intent to profit and distribution as part of getting the data. One is the intent at committing a criminal act for profit; the other is consequences of the technology means for committing a single criminal act.

dantheman 17y ago

But they do not know how much he has distributed. How much should he pay if he distributed 1 song, 100 songs, 10000 songs? Shouldn't Capital Records say how many songs were distributed & that be tied to the verdict?

pbhjpbhj 17y ago

Except that using bit torrent is considered distribution automatically. Actual distribution is not shown. I'd consider that using bt to get a copy of a recording you own (backup, format shifting) would be pretty close to fair use in the USA and certainly not immoral. If this were considered then even showing distribution would not necessarily show tortuous malfeasance. However, being practical, a proper measure of the data distributed should be made using the available evidence. For example, the copyright holder can show the recording was available for 1 day and the ISP can confirm that the uploaded data that day was 1Gb (my broadband connection maxed for 6 hours). This would yield a potential upload of about 150 tracks of 5MB. Assuming the tracks are 50p each then the maximum possible amount is about £75. Now apply whatever factor has historically been used in damages for those who sell bootleg CDs in the street and voila. A few hundred pounds at most. Equivalent to a very large speeding ticket.