30 songs cost student €473,000

Otis Driftwood · 01-08-2009 07:23PM #1

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 · 01-08-2009 07:27PM

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

TPD · 01-08-2009 07:27PM

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

jebuz · 01-08-2009 07:27PM

I hope somebody gets fired for those currency conversions

Ross_Mahon · 01-08-2009 07:28PM

Napster bad! Metallica good!

MagicMarker · 01-08-2009 07:28PM

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 · 01-08-2009 07:29PM

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 · 01-08-2009 07:29PM

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 · 01-08-2009 07:30PM

Wow

Those songs were a bigger rip off than Itunes!

TPD · 01-08-2009 07:31PM

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 · 01-08-2009 07:41PM

bit ironic that his name was Mr. Tenebaum

Rented Mule · 01-08-2009 07:42PM

They were really good songs.

01-08-2009 07:42PM

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 · 01-08-2009 07:43PM

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

Sabre0001 · 01-08-2009 07:46PM

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 · 01-08-2009 07:48PM

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 · 01-08-2009 07:50PM

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** · 01-08-2009 07:51PM

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 · 01-08-2009 07:52PM

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

Pygmalion · 01-08-2009 07:53PM

€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 · 01-08-2009 07:53PM

mink_man wrote: »

bit ironic that his name was Mr. Tenebaum

Eh...how?

seanybiker · 01-08-2009 07:53PM

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

TPD · 01-08-2009 07:53PM

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 · 01-08-2009 07:55PM

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

thomond2006 · 01-08-2009 07:57PM

nedtheshed wrote: »

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

That's just retarded.

Gummy Panda · 01-08-2009 07:57PM

**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 · 01-08-2009 07:58PM

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

netwhizkid · 01-08-2009 08:09PM

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 · 01-08-2009 08:19PM

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 · 01-08-2009 08:25PM

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 · 01-08-2009 08:27PM

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.

30 songs cost student €473,000

Comments