• Hey Guest!
    British Car Forum has been supporting enthusiasts for over 25 years by providing a great place to share our love for British cars. You can support our efforts by upgrading your membership for less than the dues of most car clubs. There are some perks with a member upgrade!
    **Upgrade Now**
    (PS: Upgraded members don't see this banner, nor will you see the Google ads that appear on the site.)
Tips
Tips

Trial started yesterday.....

Share this page

T

terriphill

Darth Vader
Offline
I've been watching this for a while. Interesting story.
I understand Jury selection has been slow because so many of the jurors have admitted to downloading music themselves!
Joel Tenebaum vs. RIAA
 
While I may be inclined to side with the R.I.A.A. were I a juror in this case I would NOT award them a judgment of 4.2 M NO WAY NO HOW!
While there is no way of knowing what Tenenbaum did with the music he D.L. eg did he reproduce it and sell it? Or did he just use it for personal use? Given the later I might be inclined to ward the R.I.A.A. $1.00 per song but that`s all!
These people have NO conscious concerning the artists, It is common practice by the R.I.A.A. to rip them off. That is why so many of the artists of today start their own recording studios.
Concerning P2P networks. Is the network it`self culpable? Arguably yes and no.
How about the file host or sender if you will? I say yes!
Then there is the argument that file sharing is surmount to me lending you a C.D.. Me not knowing if you are going to copy it or not and most likely not caring either way.

I write poetry for my own enjoyment and freely let others enjoy it too. Would I be upset if someone reproduced it for profit? Absolutely!
But to reproduce it for your own enjoyment wouldn`t bother me at all.
One other question is How much music did Tenebaum D.L. back in the days when networks like Napster and others were making it appear that music on their P2P networks was free for the taking? Many many individuals were fooled and it is understandable why. Many knew it was theft and let their greed over rule their common sense. Where does one draw the proverbial line?

In the end, the R.I.A.A. has missed the proverbial boat in the fact that for every obvious on the surface P2P network like Napster and the others, there are 1000 other underground networks with servers on foreign soil that can thumb their noses at the American courts and refuse to release records. Many of these rogue P2P networks even go as far as to provide I.S.P. masks for their clientele. My consensus is the R.I.A.A. needs to get on the 21st century train and leave the old worn out methods behind. Buying one JUNK C.D. to get one or two good songs is a thing of the past a dying dinosaur if you will.

Did I say all of that?
{Rant over}
 
Why don't they start suing all the musicians who regularly play copyrighted material to earn a few bucks in bars all across America every weekend of the year. This has been going on for years and I for one feel that those starving musicians have been ripping off the record companies and the hard working rock stars for far too long.
 
waltesefalcon, interesting concept!, thats exactly why i stay out of bars.. :thirsty:, .. so when ever an aspiring artist outside the "louve museum" does a chaulk rendering on the sidewalk of the mona lisa i guess the artist should pay a fee/royalty to the davinci estate. :rolleyes:
 
Thats right. Those filthy thieves are out there making money off of someone else's talent. I think the next time an official from the louve sees one of them they should start a law suit aginst them for no less than $5 million.
 
Right or wrong the Genie is out of the bottle and there's no real way other than eliminating the internet to stop sharing. Music, movie and other organizations need to find a way to work with it, otherwise it's the old trying to hold back the sea with a broom argument. Particularly with the younger generation that's had the ability nearly all their lives.
 
waltesefalcon said:
Thats right. Those filthy thieves are out there making money off of someone else's talent. I think the next time an official from the louve sees one of them they should start a law suit aginst them for no less than $5 million.
Click to expand...
humm.., only $5 million?, holy "escar-"GOTS", my wife is gunna freak when she sees all those lawsuits brought "aginst" me and what im going to have to pay for all the years of playing all them tunes in clubs, bars, parties, weddings, etc,... oh yah weddings! ya dont have a daughter do you? well if you do im "sure" youll get in touch with the "lawyers" associated with the "record label" of her wedding song in order to pay the royalties, ya right!!,.. :whistle:
 
I'll bet that it's settled for $3,500 to $4,000, after a trial to make the papers and scare everyone.

That kid is from RI, so we're watching it closely up here.
 
I really hope that you are correct. If RIAA gets a huge judgment out of this there will be no stopping them. My understanding of this is that he downloaded 7 songs..not such a big deal, it was the fact that he shared them so others could download from his computer that the industry is so up in arms about.
I can't help being concerned about all those cassettes back in high school that we made off of each other's albums (and *gasp* recorded off of the radio for free) and then made copies of for all of our friends. I hope none of those "bootlegged" tapes are still around because if 7 shared songs can cost this guy $4.5 million what will 30 or 40- 90 to 120 minute cassette tapes cost?
 
Nearly all of these cases have settled for that amount, with the exception of that one big one that turned the public against the RIAA.
 
If I recall correctly either the bar or the band does pay a fee. I believe it is to Ascap or BMI. These may now fall under the RIAA banner now. Not sure.
 
I didn't know all of the details, but it appears that he admitted to doing the sharing for over 7 years and he stated clearly that he uploaded and downloaded them and knew what he was doing. I had no idea that it went on that long. Kind of tough to go light on that behavior.
 
Absolutely ridiculous ruling.
 
I agree!
 
Although The R.I.A.A. was awarded 650 k they are still "stuck in the fifties" business wise.
650 K geeze!!! ....... That`s about 620 K more than they would have gotten out of me as a juror.
No matter .... if the final judgment stands I see a bankruptcy on Tenenbaum`s horizon. Most likely so even if the judgment is reduced.
800 songs over a period of years and them freely admitting to it!
As a juror one would have a hard time not awarding some sort of settlement in the R.I.A.A.`s favor.
Not the brightest candle in the window! Probably deserves what he got.
Even so he is only one short straw in the huge straw stack of P2P pirates.
The R.I.A.A. will die of old age in court and still only catch a small percentage of them. And the underground I.R.C. networks will just put up more security measures to protect their clientele.
Of course he probably wasn`t using the underground file sharing networks anyway.
Never the less this ruling will wake the I.R.C. network security scripters right up.
 
As I read it, the defendant was asked point-blank if he admitted liability to downloading and distributing the songs; that's a legal, not a factual question and shouldn't have been answered. The defendant should've kept his mouth shut and his counsel announce an objection; given the way these "trials" often run with the RIAA, the objection may or may not have been sustained though.

He answered in the affirmative which unfortunately sealed his fate. What caught me off guard was that the judge apparently instructed the jury only to find the amount of damages that would be awarded; the verdict was directed by the judge and not left to the jury. Their damages formula seems to be way off kilter, but they've managed to throw it around pretty heavily so far.
 
Back
Top