After the judge simply told the jury to decide on a fine, and not asking them to consider the validity of evidence presented by the copyright industry among other things, the Jury found that Tenenbaum be fined $675,000 for sharing 30 songs.
Rewinding a little, during the original trial of Jammie Thomas, Thomas was fined $222,000 for sharing 24 songs. This is $9,250 per work. Here in the Tenenbaum case, a jury fined Tenenbaum $675,000 for sharing 30 works – that’s $22,500 per work. Tenenbaum got fine nearly 2.5 times Thomas’ fine.
With such a huge difference – let alone Thomas’ later fine of $1.92 Million for sharing 24 songs, it immediately raises the question of what kind of measuring stick is being used for infringement. It’s more likely that the fine is little more than guesswork. Added to this, there’s no distinction between commercial infringement and non-commercial infringement in the United States.
The differences in the fine should make it even more clearer that it is critically important that the plaintiff must show actual damages caused, not to mention have a clear-cut foolproof method of actually gathering evidence against someone legally. As the defence has already argued in the Thomas case, given that a song could be bought for just over a dollar, the damages award is stratospheric compared to actual damages – in other words, if 1 download is 1 lost sale, it’s insane to consider any damages above 14 bucks per work. As of yet, the only thing closest to evidence of damage caused was assumptions and guesswork done by the copyright industry.
How is it constitutional that one person could be fined $222,000 while another person, for a very similar act, be fined over 3 times the amount anyway? Given that the awards are purely subjective, it isn’t hard to see just how fishy the whole system is – especially given that this is well in the territory of non-commercial use.
Of course, there are reasons why some outside the US see the whole legal and political system in the US as little more than a servant to the corporate world. Who knows, for some, this may be another sign of this. Either way, the copyright system is bound to draw international scepticism.
Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.
Related Posts
- Judge in Tenenbaum Case to Jury – Defedant Guilty, Pick a Fine
- Jammie Thomas Fined $1.92 Million for Sharing 24 Songs
- RIAA Member Objects to Suppressing Evidence in Tenenbaum Case
- Tenenbaum Donations to be Used to “Fight Back”
- No Deal! Jammie Thomas to Appeal $1.92 Million Fine
Loading ...
I want to know what motivated the jury to agree to that fine. Were they deceived? Or were they without common sense? If I steal a physical CD containing 30 songs on it, I’ve caused the record company to lose about 14 dollars tops. How do the damages accumulate to $675,000 when the music goes online? Is it because Tenenbaum uploaded as well as downloaded? Because I can’t imagine the average file sharer would seed enough copies of an album to cause $675,000 worth in damages.
Our justice system here in the U.S. has always been a little wacky but this sounds crazy as ever.
Then again, maybe not. There’s no mention here of how many downloads Tenenbaum gave out, if any.
Well if I was being hit by this utter BS I wouldn’t pay one red cent. Furthermore I would start making direct copies of my CD’s (hard to believe I actually paid of most of my music, right?) and start selling them for $5 on the street because a salary for any job above board would be garnished to hell (wouldn’t be surprised if they tried taking the whole damn thing- at least eventually) and I would need to find a way to survive that was under the table. . Anyway, I would want the punishment to fit the crime so I would have to do something I felt was deserving of such a judgment. Considering the proportions though, if they would fine me half a million+ for 30 songs I imagine they would execute me for actually engaging in cash profit piracy- that is if the scale of it all were consistent.
I GUARANTEE you that the RIAA spent more on lawyers than the “damages” this guy ’caused’.
@norm1515 – The real problem is they can’t prove anyone d/l’d the songs, except whoever they hired to catch him uploading it.
I assume that means this only reflects damages as a result of him grabbing the songs for himself.
The legal system should only be used to try an individual for a crime and should never be used for political or commercial interests. This is clearly a case where the punishment does not fit the crime. That is not justice.
While the bankers escape punishment and still collect their bonuses after the crash, in this case, an individual is subject to draconian punishment. It’s one law for the rich and another for the poor.
Anyone who believes this case is a victory for justice doesn’t understand the principles of democracy or justice. It’s a sad day for the US legal system but not unexpected. Business as usual it seems.
I’m continually amazed at people’s ability to rationalize their own greed. If you respected the work, you wouldn’t steal it. If you respected the people, you wouldn’t steal from them. It is actually that simple.
For the last decade I’ve heard file sharing advocates talking about how great it would be if the big labels offered unlimted downloads for a modest fee. Well, it’s here, and nobody is jumping for joy. It’s because you want free – not free as in unfettered, free as in zero paid. And in the stories you tell to yourselves people can make a living by doing things for free. They can’t. That idea died with the 90’s and you guys are the only ones that haven’t gotten over it. It’s time.
None of the services you speak of had a extensive catalog, or did not allow you to download stuff from independent artists and have them compensated. In fact I would go so far to say that many people would never sign up for such a service because they no longer want to support any funding of the big 4.
Personally I will never pay for music, its never held a value for me. Need be I’ll download creative commons work, listen to the radio, or simply not listen to music at all.
Many in the file sharing crowd believe people should have the option of being compensated for their work, but that copyright is far too restrictive. The length of copyright should be shortened, fair use should be broadened, and public performance should only apply to avenues that are directly profiting from the use of music.
Furthermore, we should not have mandatory royalty payments from broadcast and online radio. This was a ploy for labels to get paid while prevent the market from setting the price. Artist that just want exposure without getting paid should be allowed to specify this and be played on the radio without compensation. This would allow smaller acts to get exposure, and allow the market to really reflect what radio stations should pay, nothing. They are promoting artist and doing them a service, they shouldn’t have to pay for that.
Finally, I’m constantly amazed how artist rationalize their own greed. We don’t compensate every athlete in the world, but some work their ass off to get nowhere. Why should all artist get compensated, even if they can’t compel people to support them, either through merchandise or live shows. If you can’t make it in a less restricted copyright system, then you shouldn’t quit your dayjob. Their is still money to be made selling music, merchandise and lots of money to be made touring. Should I feel guilty because some greedy individual feels they should be able to sit on their ass and watch the cash roll in, hell no.
“I’m continually amazed at people’s ability to rationalize their own greed.”
It is a continuous annoyance when you assume that all people are greedy for doing a particular thing that you subjectively consider a greedy action, let alone assume that they would rationalize whatever they do. Or is that just you looking at your reflection again, since you’re the only one here who thinks about money whenever you read the word “free”? Pathetic.
“If you respected the work, you wouldn’t steal it. If you respected the people, you wouldn’t steal from them. It is actually that simple.”
You wrote the exact same thing to me. Do you remember what happened? I showed that you were wrong in all those three points.
“If you respected the work, you wouldn’t steal it.” -Wrong
That is not how respect is given or received. Or was money what you had in mind when you wrote ‘respect’?
“If you respected the people, you wouldn’t steal from them.” -Wrong
Again, giving and receiving respect does not work the way you think it does. Especially you.
“It is actually that simple.” -Wrong
The reasons why I always defeat your ‘arguments’ are because
1) none of them are grounded or factual, i.e. fallacious, subjective/opinion;
2) you always try to make reality seem so simplistic; and
3) you rely on morals and ad hominem.
“For the last decade …”
It’s always the last decade, 10 years ago, or even 50 years ago with you. Stop speculating about what you think happened in the past.
“… I’ve heard …”
I wrote too soon.
“… file sharing advocates talking about how great it would be if the big labels offered unlimted downloads for a modest fee.”
To ask for citation or point out your stupidity? That is the question.
“Well, it’s here, and nobody is jumping for joy.”
The problem is most likely that they are no good in the first place; that is why “nobody is jumping for joy”. Perhaps you left that out in an attempt to make your audience seem hypocritical.
“It’s because you want free – not free as in unfettered, free as in zero paid.”
You are an imbecile.
By the way, you have just verified my assumption: you always think about money when you read, write, or think about the word ‘free’.
“And in the stories you tell to yourselves people can make a living by doing things for free.”
Are you going to provide a single example of this, or are you just incoherently babbling?
“They can’t.”
Give some proof of that. Or am I asking too much from you, since you cannot fathom the actual meaning of ‘free’.
“That idea died with the 90’s …”
It’s always the 90’s for you.
“… and you guys are the only ones that haven’t gotten over it.”
Oh really? That exactly could be said about you.
“It’s time.”
Time for you to die, malgre, lol.
I would love to know what the artists of the 30 songs think of the fine and whether it was reasonable. Perhaps he can release a cover’s CD of the songs he copied to raise funds to pay the fine
Regardless of the moral or legal rights and wrongs of file sharing this case is a blatant affront to justice and democracy. It’s the fiscal equivalent of chopping the hands of thieves in the village square. It’s not justice in a democratic society.
Concerning musicians being rewarded for their work when has that applied to other areas of the arts? Artists images are stolen by the advertising industry and regurgitated as a means to sell product continuously. Artists encourage people to download their images for free and stick them on their walls. The only time we pay to see art is when attending a gallery and often that is government subsidised. Yet artists manage to produce their art and enjoy their lives without expecting huge rewards for what they create.
Perhaps it’s time musicians woke up to the fact that only about 3% of them will make significant money and the rest will be like every other artist/musician in history: combining other work to make ends meet.