Another Music file share nailed. $675,000 bucks.
 

http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/146827

When are we going to start seeing porn companies going directly after the users uploading and sharing our stuff?

"It may be losing badly in the court of public opinion, but when it comes to actual courtroom proceedings, the RIAA continues to rack up the victories.

The latest verdict in its favor has been handed down against Ph.D. student Joel Tenenbaum, who was found guilty of willfully infringing 30 songs and sharing them on the KaZaA peer-to-peer network. Despite the almost circus-like environment of the legal proceedings (in which Tenenbaum's lawyer was sanctioned for his behavior), the jury didn't take long to determine the level of damages against Tenenbaum: $675,000, or $22,500 per song he illegally shared online.

That sounds steep but it actually compares favorably to the second verdict leveled against Jammie Thomas-Rasset, who was the first individual ever found guilty of copyright infringement over a peer-to-peer network. The original 2007 verdict against her (damages: $9,250 per song) was thrown out after a mistrial was declared, but in June a new jury found her even more guilty than before, with fines set at a whopping $80,000 per song. In comparison, Tenenbaum is getting off easy.

Tenenbaum had entered the courtroom with the audicious defense that personal file sharing online was protected by "Fair Use" copyright provisions, which offer certain exemptions to the otherwise rather stringent prohibition against making copies of commercial materials. Tenenbaum's Fair Use arguments were largely denied, and Tenenbaum basically wasn't allowed to introduce that defense in his case. In fact, when he took the stand and was asked directly if he shared the files on KaZaA, Tenenbaum admitted it directly, including the fact that he'd lied about it in his written deposition late last year. In contrast, Thomas-Rasset has always pleaded that she was innocent in the file sharing allegations, though direct and circumstantial evidence has always been heavily positioned against her.

Tenenbaum says if he is pressed to pay the damages, he'll be forced to declare bankruptcy. Appeals and additional motions are pending."

$22,500 per song he shared, holy shit.

Never. "Sign up for our program get a free tube script!"

jesus they rapped that guy

Oh come on... every MAJOR tube site out there is backed by content from every major program out there. Any tube site that allows user uploads gets sandboxed, the videos never really makes it to the front page anyways, and besides, the tube site itself is just a conduit for clickthru to their own paysites and programs.

I've tested uploads on most of the big name sites, and all of them that do allow uploads end up sandboxing the video... you never see it anywhere on the site, but the link they give you to view it does work.

I highly doubt the guy can afford to pay for the appellate level

So, what your saying is that major tubes (please name some for your example) that have my content on them uploaded it themselves? I seem to have no problem finding my video on any of the tubes, yet, nada in the forms of links back to me mention of me or reference to the site the video comes from. etc. I've sent DMCA to all of this bigger names at one point or another.

Fuck me!!

Only the very ignorant think there is even 1 less file available on the net today than there was yesterday and only a fool would think that this has stopped ANYONE from downloading or uploading ANYTHING to share. In fact, the way pirates are, I bet they seeded Nirvana, Smashing Pumpkins and shit MORE now.

I dont use limewire or kazaa or any of that stuff, but I know for a fact that when peopole get fined, the pirate will seed those bands stuff more than ever and no one will cease to do what they been doing for so long.

The death penalty doesnt stop crime, and fines wont stop pirates. I was talking to someone yesterday and noticed he was burning some DVDs, he was burning movies not even out on DVD yet. LOL

you think a fine is gonna stop anyone? Fines dont even stop speeding let alone downloading.

he will be never able to pay but i say thank you for rejecting his hilarious "fair use" excuse

Perhaps he heard John McCain say the same thing about his illegal using of songs in RNC ads for his campaign?

His defense tried to say it should be fair use when used for political purposes LOL

If people who run for Presidency can use fair use, why not college guys? :1orglaugh

i don't blame him for trying - but it would have been a desaster if the judge would have agreed

What I dont understand is how come John Mccain gets off so light while actually profiting from and using songs commercially, yet some college guy downloading nirvana gets worse?

But hey, America is not known for thinkers anymore, logic and reason were swept away long ago :winkwink:

he didn't claim that p2p for personal use was fair use. he was talking about the specific condition where the download was by an agent of the copyright holder, and therefore authorized by the copyright holder.

That the only evidence against him, they have no proof that anyone else downloaded from him.

it meets all the conditions btw, since no sale would be lost in that transaction so he has a very good appeal. IT just means the process of creating the infringement and then suing based on that created infringement has to stop. You actually need proof of an actual lost sale before you go after the next guy.

good stuff

fuck you...

so you think you should be found guilty of a crime that would never exist had you not been setup.

The entire transaction is initiated by the downloader
the program automatically indexs the my music folder


would you feel the same way if you the government sent an underage girl with perfect fake id to convict you as CP producer.

i will not argue with you, i am just sick of your constant defending of copyright theft :2 cents:

so once again: fuck you...

Um... he took material he did not own rights to and illegally gave it to others... Exactly how do you see that as not being a crime?

Sometimes I think you like to sitting around and sniff your own farts.

the question of the right to songs were never established

he might have had a right under any one of the multiple fair uses
he could have been format shifting the content from cd he already owned choosing to simple click a couple of links to get the mp3 thru kazza instead of hunting thru his cd ripping them all one at a time .

he could have gotten permission from the artist themselves as is the case from
http://torrentfreak.com/raiohead-to-...e-riaa-090404/
which was some of the songs originally listed from the begining (but later removed)

or he could have been simply "timeshifting" listen from the radio play paid for to another time.


one thing is absolutely certain he is only proven to have given the song to someone who was authorized by the copyrightholders agent to download it.

You may want to guess that other people not authorized similar downloaded the file, but that would violate the principle of being innocent until proven guilty since it also likely that noone else connected to his offering.

I don't see anything wrong with people sharing music and software..When I BUY a song or software it is mine to do with what I want..I BOUGHT IT I did not rent it..Maybe the music and software companies should just code it where you can't copy or record it....I have almost 50,000 songs that I never paid one cent for..Why do they make DVD burners, CD recorders, Tape decks, and any other kinds of recording device's? Sony, one of the largest music mfgs. Makes DVD burners, CD burners, tape recorders..It seems that they for one are helping to further the recording of music and software..

I didn't even think people use Kazaa anymore, p2p networks are so 05..

Never, the porn industry does not have the balls to do it. The sad part is after 2 years of losing traffic to Tube sites the industry has no clue what to do.

Who cares? Enough people have lost their jobs due to piracy and I doubt if he cares. about them losing their homes.

However the law disagrees with you. THANKFULLY.

Can you name someone that has lost their home or job due to piracy?

I am sure this is going to come across as a really stupid question but here it goes:

Are they only going after the people that upload and share as adverse to someone that would just download?

I am just curious. Seems the cases I have read about rely on people that share the files.

I am sure this is going to come across as a really stupid question but here it goes:

Are they only going after the people that upload and share as adverse to someone that would just download?

I am just curious. Seems the cases I have read about rely on people that share the files.

Okay apparently I had 2 stupid questions. LOL

:2 cents:

Over half a million in debt just because of 30 songs shared?

Holy fuck! Grow the fuck up America (judges, specifically)! How can you allow this?

Why do you always stick up for pirates?

Are you even in this industry?

i don't i specifically
leave the tracker alone
leave the seeders alone
leave the downloaders who have a fair use right alone
sue those that download without a fair use right.
you just keep posting cases where fair use is ignored.

or where the courts have basically gone back on one of the fundamental rights like "innocent until proven guilty" by infering guilt of a crime from what is not in itself a crime (giving content to someone authorized to download it).

lol - you just keep on repeating this - but if hosts and ISP's actually tracked it you would scream about privacy laws

you just want to keep the 'status quo / perfect crime' scenario going for you own personal benefits

if you really believe what you say, then enlighten us all on just exactly how the 'single guilty person' gets caught (download or upload) without host and/or ISP tracking (and subsequent turning of personal info over to the courts) ???

.

GOD, I bet that fart smelled gooooood.....

My CD collection is so huge (over 2,000 cds last count years ago), the other day I downloaded an album from the internet (I own the CD) becasue it was faster to do it that way than dig through and rip the cd so I could get the mp3s, is that illegal?

LOLz

that the point made from the thomas case
it the stupidest arguement made by the RIAA and the judges are so oblivious to fair use after years of being part of pro copyright lobby groups (educating themselves about the issue according to the swedish government)

that those arguements seem to make sense and they instruct juries to make such rulings.

they can
that why i advocate setting up a private tracker, and fully supplying the fair use rights of the 1st three groups.

When those three groups are fully provided for, the third group has nothing to hide behind, using a public tracker in and of itself is either an infringement or a breach of contract. Both of which allow you to pierce the privacy rights of the downloader.

So on a tube site I can post a 2 hour video, and make money off the ads, until a DMCA is sent, i can keep it up and make money off other peoples work.

If you are in this industry and you belive that is "fair" thats prettty stupid.

Right from this article.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...0-per-song.ars

"The trial was an almost entirely one-sided affair. Plaintiffs built their case with forensic evidence collected by MediaSentry, which showed that he was sharing over 800 songs from his computer on August 10, 2004. A subsequent examination of his computer showed that Tenenbaum had used a variety of different peer-to-peer programs, from Napster to KaZaA to AudioGalaxy to iMesh, to obtain music for free, starting in 1999. And he continued to infringe, even after his father warned him in 2002 that he would get sued, even after he received a harshly-worded letter from the plaintiffs? law firm in 2005, even after he was sued in 2007, and all the way through part of 2008.

And when he took the stand on Thursday, Tenenbaum admitted it all, including the fact that he had ?lied? in his written discovery responses and at his first deposition in September 2008"

He got on the stand and admitted everything he has been up to. If he really thought he had a fair use argument and was not allowed to use it wouldn't he have just stayed off the stand then made sure to use that arguement in his appeal?

If you go on the stand and admit that you have sold drugs to a bunch of people, you get found guilty of selling drugs. If you go on the stand and admit that you robbed a bank, you get found guilty of robbing a bank. This guy admitted his guilt. Case is closed.

In theory, no. In practice, yes.

It's rather hard to find out that someone has been downloading something - unless he downloads it from organizations affiliated with the record companies, which could be taken as implied consent from the record companies.

Of course, with software like bittorrent, virtually every downloader is also an uploader.

I was trying not to answer your more stupid posts but this one is beyond stupid.

US judges don't apply Swedish laws. They apply US law and if they get it wrong the decision gets over turned. I'm not sure if replacing CDs bought is legal or not, maybe you could give the law that says this.

fair use is an affirmative defence you must first admit that you did something to claim that it was not actually a crime.

look at the cp entrapment example, you would have to admit that you shot the underage girl before you could claim that tricked by perfect fake id into believe she was over age (see the traci lords case).

the judge denied the fair use defence, he would not even let it be considered that the point
that specifically why it was such a one sided trial.
that also why it is so wrong.

and you ar a moron, i didn't say that swedish law was going to apply to this case, i simple said that swedish government declared that being part of a pro-copyright lobby group does not bias the judge.

Currently there is 1 fair use lobby group and dozens of pro-copyright lobby groups
no judges are part of the fair use lobby group
virtually all judges are part of at least 1 pro-copyright lobby group.
It has created a situation where judges have been "educated" into ignoring fair use (like this judge did)
the fact that sweden is the only country that explictly claimed that there was no bias from such an one sided "education" about copyright doesn't change the fact that all most judges have had this one sided "education" about the issue.