4 ms·

"Joel Tenenbaum, of Providence, R.I., admitted he downloaded and distributed 30 songs. The only issue for the jury to decide was how much in damages to award th

by aichcon 17y ago

"Joel Tenenbaum, of Providence, R.I., admitted 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." So at $675,000 / 30 songs, the jury decided that each track was worth $22,500? I understand that copyright laws should exist. But it really bothers me that not only were such high values set in the laws, but that the jury enforced them even though they had the option of choosing lesser amounts. A part of the jury's job is to provide an additional, more 'human' interpretation of the case ... in this case I think they failed.

jrockway 17y ago
A part of the jury's job is to provide an additional, more 'human' interpretation of the case ... in this case I think they failed. "Humans" tend to do whatever authority figures tell them to do. Jury selection excluded anyone with a brain. To them, this kid violated the law just like the 9/11 hijackers did. "He is basically a terrorist! So let him burn; it's not happening to me, after all!"
grellas 17y ago
The law in this area is horribly stacked against any individual caught up in such a case, with the full legal weight of the music industry bearing down on him. See this write-up from earlier today (http://bit.ly/qMtUe http://bit.ly/qMtUe) on how Joel Tenenbaum was basically worn down on the stand until he wound up finally admitting to liability. Once he did that, the judge took that issue away from the jury. This means the jury was instructed that the defendant was already found liable and that their sole job was to pick a damage number using the federal statutory guidelines. The judge had already gutted major parts of the defense before the case ever got to trial (for example, fair use was tossed out as a defense). In such a context, even a sympathetic jury could have done little or nothing, though it appears this jury was not sympathetic. The bullying tactics used by the music industry in these cases are atrocious and represent among the worst that the law has to offer. What is needed here is a broader solution likely involving a revamp of the copyright laws.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  The music industry is not helping themselves by winning these cases. I know that sounds contradictory but people that otherwise couldn't care less are getting worked up about this. The bigger the amount the worse the PR. People are not scared, they're angry.
  - jrockway 17y ago
    On the other hand, the average person tends to enjoy watching something bad happen to some other person. Especially when they "violated the law". This, I think, is why the prisons in the US are so inhumane. "Those criminials deserve to be tortured."
  - cellis 17y ago
    I actually think you're wrong, sadly. People in the real world, people that are likely to download songs, are not digital cognoscenti like members of HN. They read about this (or watch it on TV, most likely) and think "Shit! Tell Johnny to stop downloading!". Fear tactics do work. So, i would bet that the RIAA is very happy about the message they are sending.
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      If they would be happy they'd continue these tactics. They are realizing that they are losing the PR battle fast so they've decided to stop these cases, new ones are not being brought. To avoid setting bad precedent they have to continue the ones that are in court (or they'd open themselves up to all kinds of trouble wrt to the fees they've already received in settlements, a good case could be made for extortion: "look, as soon as a case goes to court they drop it") Or that's my understanding of it, maybe some legal whiz here can shine some light on that.
philsatx 17y ago
How did he download? Did he download via torrents or did he get full copy downloads?

by aichcon 17y ago

jrockway 17y ago

A part of the jury's job is to provide an additional, more 'human' interpretation of the case ... in this case I think they failed. "Humans" tend to do whatever authority figures tell them to do. Jury selection excluded anyone with a brain. To them, this kid violated the law just like the 9/11 hijackers did. "He is basically a terrorist! So let him burn; it's not happening to me, after all!"

grellas 17y ago

The law in this area is horribly stacked against any individual caught up in such a case, with the full legal weight of the music industry bearing down on him. See this write-up from earlier today (http://bit.ly/qMtUe http://bit.ly/qMtUe) on how Joel Tenenbaum was basically worn down on the stand until he wound up finally admitting to liability. Once he did that, the judge took that issue away from the jury. This means the jury was instructed that the defendant was already found liable and that their sole job was to pick a damage number using the federal statutory guidelines. The judge had already gutted major parts of the defense before the case ever got to trial (for example, fair use was tossed out as a defense). In such a context, even a sympathetic jury could have done little or nothing, though it appears this jury was not sympathetic. The bullying tactics used by the music industry in these cases are atrocious and represent among the worst that the law has to offer. What is needed here is a broader solution likely involving a revamp of the copyright laws.

jacquesm 17y ago
The music industry is not helping themselves by winning these cases. I know that sounds contradictory but people that otherwise couldn't care less are getting worked up about this. The bigger the amount the worse the PR. People are not scared, they're angry.
- jrockway 17y ago
  On the other hand, the average person tends to enjoy watching something bad happen to some other person. Especially when they "violated the law". This, I think, is why the prisons in the US are so inhumane. "Those criminials deserve to be tortured."
- cellis 17y ago
  I actually think you're wrong, sadly. People in the real world, people that are likely to download songs, are not digital cognoscenti like members of HN. They read about this (or watch it on TV, most likely) and think "Shit! Tell Johnny to stop downloading!". Fear tactics do work. So, i would bet that the RIAA is very happy about the message they are sending.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    If they would be happy they'd continue these tactics. They are realizing that they are losing the PR battle fast so they've decided to stop these cases, new ones are not being brought. To avoid setting bad precedent they have to continue the ones that are in court (or they'd open themselves up to all kinds of trouble wrt to the fees they've already received in settlements, a good case could be made for extortion: "look, as soon as a case goes to court they drop it") Or that's my understanding of it, maybe some legal whiz here can shine some light on that.

philsatx 17y ago

How did he download? Did he download via torrents or did he get full copy downloads?