Recording Industry Succeeds In Ruining a Kid’s Life Over 31 Stupid Songs

[n2doc]

Yesterday marked the end of Joel Tenenbaum's court battle with the RIAA over 31 songs he illegally distributed on Kazaa. A federal judge denied his latest appeal, and now he's on the hook for $675,000. That's nearly $22,000 per song, plus some wholesale character assassination that has now been sealed with judge's rubber stamp.
U.S. District Court Judge Rya W. Zobel declined Tenenbaum's last appeal, saying the jury decided correctly last year when it found that Tenenbaum, 28, had willfully stolen the songs and that he knew better. But rather than uphold the decision against him and move on, Zobel took the opportunity to moralize:

In short, there was ample evidence of willfulness and the need for deterrence based on Tenenbaum's blatant contempt of warnings and apparent disregard for the consequences of his actions. In spite of the overwhelming
evidence from which the jury could conclude that Tenenbaum's activities were willful, the award of $22,500 per infringement not only was at the low end of the range – only 15% of the statutory maximum – for willful infringement, but was below the statutory maximum for non-willful infringement.

To translate the lawspeak, the judge basically says that Tenenabaum was a very naughty who should've known better, and it was awfully nice of the jury to be so lenient. The number the jury decided on was below the maximum allowed if he had committed the crime unwittingly. They could have hit Tenenbaum with a $4.65 million penalty.

more
http://gizmodo.com/5937556/recording-industry-succeeds-in-ruining-a-kids-life-over-31-stupid-songs

[Politicalboi]

1. Poor kid

Now if he were a GOP elite, he could use artist songs as he pleased, and then say oops, and it all goes away. This is ridiculous. Nobody should have to pay those kinds of fines. Now if you are making money on the music I could see that. But $22,500 is excessive IMO.

[neeksgeek]

2. Somebody should tell the RIAA Aesop's fable about ...

The goose that laid the golden eggs.

[RoccoR5955]

3. And how the hell are they supposed to get it from the kid?

Surely he has no incentive to be successful in his life!
The judge should have his head examined.

[Posteritatis]

42. Twenty or thirty years of wage garnishing, I'd imagine

Or they'll just drop him behind bars.

[RoccoR5955]

78. Not if he's making minimum wage.

I thought there were no debtor prisons in the US?!?!

[former9thward]

87. He declares bankruptcy and it is over.

His credit score takes a hit for a while but that will recover soon enough.

[savalez]

89. I wondered about that.

After 7 years (I think) when his bankruptcy is over. Will he owe again?

[Posteritatis]

90. I have a feeling by then the recording industry will have tried to get the laws "fixed." (nt)

[former9thward]

97. He will not owe his creditors at the time he went bankrupt.

Assuming he listed all of them in his petition (which is why using a lawyer may be advisable).

[obamanut2012]

103. I don't believe you can discharge court judgements

[former9thward]

118. You may not believe it but you can.

As long as you list the debt on the bankruptcy petition.

[progressivebydesign]

109. Don't think you can declare bankruptcy to avoid a legal judgement.

remember the republicans rewrote the rules a few years ago. I doubt you could do that.

[former9thward]

114. Both sides changed the rules.

But that does not matter, you can file bankruptcy to avoid a judgement.

[JohnnyRingo]

77. The RIAA cares less about the money than the message.

The RIAA made sure this case got a lot of print space to send a warning to others who may cross them. It's like putting his severed head on a pike in the front yard for people who don't think they have to pay the dollar for Madonna's latest aural assault.

BTW... The RIAA has stated they have no intention of distributing the cash from these copyright settlements to the artists they purport to be watching out for. The money will be used to feather the beast's cage and allow it to grow proportionately.

[msongs]

4. 28 is not a "kid" nt

[Incitatus]

6. No, but the judgement is still assinine. nt

[jsmirman]

9. He's 28 *now*

when the hell was the last time you used kazaa?

[theHandpuppet]

21. Just what I was thinking

The punishment was ridiculously harsh, but a 28 year old man is NOT a "kid".

[pnwmom]

34. He was a college student when he did the crimes for which he was charged, more than 7 years ago.

[JI7]

28. This Case Goes back some years, he was like 20 when it started

[pnwmom]

35. He was a 21 year old college student when he did it. It's taken years to go

through the courts.

[Beaverhausen]

5. Cry me a river

It's illegal and he knew it.

[Incitatus]

7. Most DUers are against draconian punishments. nt

[Beaverhausen]

8. So?

[Incitatus]

11. Just pointing out a fact. If you don't care about people getting screwed by the courts

for such trivial matters, that's your perogative.

[Beaverhausen]

16. I'm a musician.

Hope that clears things up for you.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

17. Cry me a river. nt

[Incitatus]

22. Good for you.

I'm sorry if you have to work a second job because so many people download your music, but my point stands. The punishment should fit the crime.

[rDigital]

38. Punishment should fit the crime x 100000 nt

[Incitatus]

39. X 100K?

So someone who steals a $1 candy bar should be fined $100k?

[rDigital]

55. LOL, no that's not what I meant

I agree, the punishment should fit the crime. The kid should have been fined the equivalent of the retail cost of the music.

[Wednesdays]

102. Yes, if it's a $100,000 candy bar

Sorry, couldn't resist.

And they were my ultimate favorite when I was a kid.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

113. What if it was a 100 Grand bar?

[Le Taz Hot]

23. So am I and I say it's excessive.

And just think -- the people who LIED to get us into war and the banksters who brought down the world's economy are all walking free and walked away with TRILLIONS. That put things in perspective for ya?

[Iggo]

37. Me, too.

And that dude got screwed.

[Scootaloo]

44. Do you get paid $22,000 every time a song you made sells?

Nice work if you can get it.

[Egalitarian Thug]

60. Not even a little. I assume you work for a label, so tell us, what were the gross sales figures for

your last recording? Then tell us what your take of that was.

[Nostradammit]

63. Most musicians I know (myself included) have a lot more empathy than you are displaying here.

[Confusious]

70. So I guess

The three strikes and you're out laws are evil, but when it comes to your shit.... Well wait a fuckin' minute!

you're part of the problem.

Sorry, ain't no musicians shit worth 22,000 a song.

[hobbit709]

76. So how much of that $22K per song has the RIAA given you?

I don't know of a single musician(and I know plenty of them) that has ever gotten a penny from these outlandish fines. In fact several of them have had to sue the recording companies to get their money.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

80. I'm a musician, too...

I make a living off my music. The punishment does NOT fit the crime. I freely distribute my songs. I have no issue of people sharing my music. It gets my music out there, and that's the point.

[obamanut2012]

104. Musicians aren't getting the judgement monies

[progressivebydesign]

110. 30 songs at 99 cent per download, pretty much. n/t

[Katashi_itto]

116. Actually it does just the opposite. I would be predisposed never to even buy your music now.

You really never bothered to study the whole picture.

Any Musician/band that cant be bothered to learn how to use the internet to connect with their audience are fools.

Metallica decided to sue their fans and it did them a world of "good"
"Reputation Is A Scarce Good... As Metallica Is Learning
from the oops dept

On Thursday, we wrote about Metallica's latest foray online, where it's attempting to build a community around its latest music. Given Metallica's history of attacking Napster all the way back in 2000, we expected there to be some pushback, but what was really stunning was how many of the comments were from people (many of whom had been big fans of the band) still pissed off about Metallica's actions, and refusing to have anything to do with the band. We weren't the only ones to notice. Wired had a story on Metallica's efforts and discovered exactly the same thing. The vast majority of the comments were vehemently negative. Clearly, Metallica really tarnished its reputation by its actions, and it's still paying for it."

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080529/1914021263.shtml

Just remember that fans remember...You think this is great? No problem. I think it's great that musicians are a dime-a-dozen. My money goes to the ones that actually don't hold their fans in contempt.

[pa28]

19. Seems like a pretty hard-nosed response.

Looking back on my own history I'm starting to get nervous.

I don't steal songs but using 22 pieces of illegally downloaded music as a benchmark for 600k of criminal liability would make me a pretty bad guy.

[wickerwoman]

56. So is jaywalking,

but a civilised society shouldn't saddle 21 year olds with life-crippling debt for crimes against property.

His criminal record will bar him from most white-collar, living-wage jobs. That $675,000 will probably mean he can never afford to own a house, have kids or retire in reasonable comfort. Earning the median US income and paying nothing but the fine, it would take him 17 years to get out of debt. Assuming he'd also like to eat and have a roof over his head, it would take someone earning an average income 45 years to pay off $675,000.

What he did was the equivalent of shoplifting a handful of CDs from a store. Yes, it's illegal and he shouldn't have done it but do you seriously think its something he should still be punished for when he's 66?

[progressivebydesign]

111. Frankly the RIAA should have gone after the sites that enable it.

My Mom was looking for a particular ringtone, and some of the sites that offered it looked shady, but you could NOT tell it was illegal. So I googled them, and found out they were illegal downloads. RIAA should go after that stuff, because frankly someone could easily download without knowing. Not like the sites actually tell the users that they could have their lives destroyed.

And it's sick that not one musician sees a penny of those judgements... the music industry is another bloated corporate monster now. Gotta love guys like Joe Bonamassa who bypass that shit and leave the labels out of it.

[Ter]

92. So's speeding, did you ever do it?

Let's say you do 45 in a 40 mph zone. You're ticket is $600,000. Does that mean you deserve it? Punishment should always fit the crime. I stole a candy bar when I was 11. I knew it was illegal. Should I have gotten 10 years?

[backscatter712]

96. Do you have daddy issues? Have you considered therapy?

It's clear that your authoritarianism is crippling your social interactions. Pretty sad, really.

[limpyhobbler]

10. This shows our legal system is a sick perversion of justice. nt

[Cerridwen]

13. Supported by some DUers.

I often wonder how many of the "law is the law" types would have turned in escaped slaves had they lived in those times since, of course, "it's illegal!" "It's the LAW!!!"

[limpyhobbler]

25. How many hypocrites support these laws but then listen to free music on the internet themselves?

Who doesn't listen to a copyrighted song on youtube?

Same exact thing.

You listen to it, it gets copied to your computer. The hypocrisy is astounding.

[Occulus]

51. Everyone here who uses grooveshark may be guilty of a similar "crime".

I have no respect for or civility toward the RIAA and those who fellate it. It and they can go to hell with a quickness.

[limpyhobbler]

61. LOL

...and those who fellate it...
That't a perfect description of the situation. A perfect analogy. It's the money. They slop it around in the Congress to get these crazy laws on the books.

[Egalitarian Thug]

65. You have to give them credit, it took them over 30 years of constant effort

to finally find people stupid enough to buy their absurd argument.

[limpyhobbler]

73. In the 80's and 90's we used to tape songs off the radio.

You could give people mix tapes. I liked giving mix tapes to people. I never realized I was commiting millions of dollars worth or federal offenses.

RIAA can go jump off a fucking bridge. Filesharing really took off maybe about 1999-2001 when napster hit the scene.

DU gets glitchy sometimes. Either that or I'm seeing quadruple. I see your post 4 times.

[Egalitarian Thug]

75. Good morning. The replies were breeding while I slept.

Yeah they tried to stop sharing in the 60's, 70's, and 80's. Each time the courts said you've got to be kidding. We didn't go completely stupid until the 90's.

[backscatter712]

95. Right Wing Authoritarianism is a mental illness that has even infected DU posters.

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

One of the classic behaviors of the RWA is demands for extreme, draconian, disproportionate punishments for even minor transgressions. Steal half a dozen pieces of music that sell for 99 cents in iTunes, they demand half a million dollars in fines, prison, an entire ruined life. A life sentence for stealing a loaf of bread, the death penalty for embarrassing the powerful. They can't stand in when people defy their strict, harsh daddy figures, and demand extreme force and sanctions be used to get their way.

So to all of those applauding this sentence: Have you ever thought about seeking therapy?

[Skip Intro]

12. Can he file bankruptcy, and make this debt disappear?

Anybody know?

[Egalitarian Thug]

15. The new "bankruptcy reform" (thank you so much Hillary) rules make it much harder, but yes he can.

[Skip Intro]

32. How was Hillary responsible for bankruptcy reform?

You are talking about the bankruptcy reform of 2005, right?

[Egalitarian Thug]

57. It was her baby as the freshman Senator from NY. And while she didn't actually cast a vote

in it's final passage (she was with Bill in the hospital) it was a done deal due to her constant efforts of 4 years so her potentially embarrassing vote was not needed. That and her fellating Tata even as IBM laid of 30,000 of her constituents to replace them with, guess what, were her signature achievements.

[progressivebydesign]

112. Hillary Clinton did not write that bankruptcy bill. it was republican. n/t

[Egalitarian Thug]

117. She didn't write it, nor did she, in the end, vote on the final passage. She worked for three years

to make it happen. go back and look for yourself. 2001. it's all there for anyone that cares to see.

Weasel words. She's not a liberal except during campaign season.

[Egalitarian Thug]

14. Congratulations, they've created another "enemy of the state".

Hopefully this kid has the wherewithal to realize the new position he is in.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

18. Disgusting beyond belief. Anyone that supports bullshit like this...

Should be allowed nowhere near the level-headed people in society.

[Logical]

20. The idiot kid is guilty no doubt. The fine is way to much. I would suggest $100 a song. Stealing....

is stealing. There needs to be some punishment.

Kids now days, and many DU members, do not think copying movies or music is wrong.

[Scootaloo]

45. $100? He's paying damages, correct?

Make him pay for the royalty that would have been paid to the artist for each song.

Total penalty would be about five bucks.

The RIAA is "protecting the artists" in the same way Ed Meese was "protecting the children."

[Logical]

81. No, if you steal you pay MORE because you stole. $100 a song sounds fair. n-t

[Scootaloo]

83. Really? Wall Street tells me otherwise n/t

[Logical]

84. Then let Obama know you are disappointed. So because no one sent them to jail allow all theft?

[Ter]

93. Some have 5,000 illegal songs

100 times 5,000 is a lot. What about in the 70's, 80's, and 90's when we used to record off the radio? What was that ok?

[Logical]

94. Your ass can still record music off the radio. Go for it. Just dont share it with millions of people

[Ter]

98. This isn't about me

Technically, the stations are sharing it with millions. Those who "tape" it are like kids who download.

[Logical]

100. You realize the radio stations pay money to play it don't you?

[Ter]

115. Why are videos on Youtube allowed?

There's so much grey area involved it's crazy.

[muriel_volestrangler]

86. This is for uploading them to where others copied them, not downloading

so there's a potential loss higher than the royalty per song. But $22,000 per song is ridiculous. Any song that got downloaded tens of thousands of times would be uploaded by hundreds of people, and you can't blame one person for it. $100 per song would seem a tough punishment to me. It would be a complete deterrent to anyone, I'd say.

[limpyhobbler]

59. Not an idiot. This behavior was normal for most in his peer group.

He is being made and example of.

Hardly an idiot.

[Logical]

82. Well, idiot parents then. My kids KNOW not to use online music sharing sites because I know...

the risk involved. Many parents do not really pay attention to what their kids do.

[tsuki]

24. And Corzine is still free as a bird. nt

[Confusious]

71. and bush and cheny and their ilk are still free as a bird nt

[Alduin]

26. I will continue to download free music in protest.

Fuck the RIAA.

[Drunken Irishman]

27. I don't like it and I feel bad for him, but he had to have known it was illegal...

I had Kazaa years ago and the second I started reading these stories, I stopped downloading music. I didn't like the fact I had to stop doing it, but I did because I know you can't fight The Man & win. It sucks he's being charged THAT much, but he knew it was a possibiliy and if it's the law...it's the law. It's why I deleted every file sharing program I had on my computer...from LimeWire to Kazaa YEARS ago. I haven't used any of those services since at least 2006.

[pnwmom]

36. He's charged for what he did in 2005. You haven't used the services since 2006.

You could have been in the same fix he's in.

He was just a college student when this happened. How many other college students in that era were doing the same thing?

[Drunken Irishman]

40. Well he did something I didn't do...he distributed.

I never did. I turned the settings off so that none of my files could be distrusted. I downloaded...and I wasn't sure if it was 2006 ... or 2005 ... or 2004. I just know that when these stories hit, I stopped and removed the programs from my computer.

I'm not justifying their action...I do think they charged him way too much...but it is the law, unfortunately.

I also think it mentioned he was warned by his ISP to stop downloading? If that's the case, and he continued, well...

[pnwmom]

49. I know I warned my kids as soon as I heard about this (in case they were doing it).

But I never imagined the penalties could be this high. It seems disproportional.

[Drunken Irishman]

54. It definitely is...

One woman was hit with a $1.92 million fine!

http://torrentfreak.com/woman-hit-with-192-million-fine-in-riaa-case-090619/

[uncle ray]

62. so, receiving and possessing stolen goods is A-ok by you then.

at least most of us stand up next to our file sharing peers instead of throwing them under the bus.

[Drunken Irishman]

67. Yup...because that's what I said...

Cute that you can fail to read an entire post, or posts, and conclude on your own something that isn't true. I've only pointed out that it is the law ... doesn't make it right, but it is the law. I also think getting busted for possession of weed is stupid, but that doesn't mean I carry a ton on me when I'm out and about. I know what risks are involved and I'm not going to put myself in the position to get busted.

It sucks. It continues to suck...but you know what you're getting into when you do it and that's the main reason I stopped doing it. I don't want to be forced to pay back a couple hundred thousand dollars in a settlement. So, I don't file share anymore. Until the laws are changed, that's all I can do.

You can say it's not standing next to others - I just look at it as common sense. We've seen too many stories of people getting busted and being forced to pay ungodly amounts of cash to continue doing something that is, whether you agree with it or not, still illegal.

[Drunken Irishman]

29. Also, this goes beyond downloading...he was also distributing...

Which is why he was probably fined the amount he was...as obscene as it is.

[Incitatus]

30. These programs are designed so that as soon as you download a song it is shared.

Maybe he wasn't familiar with the settings. Either way 31 songs shared by one user isn't that much. There are far bigger violators.

[Drunken Irishman]

33. I doubt it was just 31 songs...

He was charged for 31 songs, but he had been doing this from 1999-2007 and it does say he downloaded and distributed thousands of songs.

[Occulus]

41. You seem stuck on the distribution point, so allow me to explain how it works.

When you use most of these searchable file sharing programs, you do the search, pick the song, and then download from a (sometimes long) list. When you download any song or video or other file, the program automatically shares chunks of those files with others.

That's how the software just works. Left unmodified in its settings, it defaults to this behavior. The networks depend upon this, but the default is to always share, pretty much universally.

clarification: you almost never end up.sending whole, usable files to individual users.

The penalty is way, waaaaaaay too high. He is being set up on a pedestal as an example to others.

This doesn't sit well with me at all.

[Drunken Irishman]

43. I know how it's done...

It doesn't sit well with me, but it is the law and there isn't much we can do about it. People should be wise enough now to know that these people DON'T FUCK AROUND. So, just saying it's immoral or wrong ain't going to help you a lick. It even says in the brief he received warnings...including one from the plaintiff...that he ignored. It sucks, it's way too much money, he shouldn't be asked to pay that much money, but it's also not as if he's 100% purely innocent in this.

[Occulus]

47. Do you believe this dollar amount to be a justifiable punishment?

[Drunken Irishman]

50. No I don't. But it is and as much as it sucks, we've known they do these judgments for years now.

This went on from 1999-2007 and he was warned three times - including once by the prosecution. As much as the punishment sucks, he had to have known there was a chance, since we've seen over the last seven or so years people who are getting hit with unreal fines. I feel for him...but like I said in another post, this is why I stopped back in '04, '05 or '06...I can't remember. I did it because I saw people who were getting fined an awful, horrible amount and I didn't want that to happen because I realized, after watching people fail in their defense, you can't beat this rap.

[Initech]

31. The RIAA can go fuck themselves.

[-..__...]

46. "Recording Industry Succeeds In Ruining a Kid’s Life"?!?

No... not even close (talk about a biased/misleading headline).

The "kid" in question ruined his own life by knowingly and willfully violating the law.

He fucked up; he got caught, and now he's paying the price.

The only person/entity to blame is himself... not the RIAA.

[Occulus]

48. Actually, decent people blame you and those like you.

[Incitatus]

53. Some of these people remind me of those that say lock up minor drug offendors

and throw away the key.

[NYC Liberal]

58. Nope, I blame the RIAA and the courts.

In what world is $22,000 for copyright infringement of a single song justified?

Should there be a punishment? Yes. Does the punishment fit the crime in this case? Not even close.

[girl gone mad]

72. The RIAA, the politicians it's bribed, and its lame apologists are to blame.

There's where the story ends.

[bluestateguy]

52. Do they actually expect to collect any of that money?

If they get 10% of it I'll be amazed.

[Posteritatis]

91. They expect to have him beaten down for life as an example to others

It's not about reparations, just wrath.

[BOG PERSON]

108. yup

mafia tactics backed by the full protection of the law

[hollysmom]

64. here is the judgement PDF file

http://beckermanlegal.com/Lawyer_Copyright_Internet_Law/sony_tenenbaum_120823Decision.pdf

I think they sued him as an example because he refused to stop doing it
I think most people would stop after a cease and desist letter, so many of my friends got them a few years ago and they all backed away - but it was about copying TV shows/clips and sharing them with friends, not the public at large.

The trial evidence also supports the jury’s determination that Tenenbaum
willfully infringed plaintiffs’ copyrights. He conducted his infringing activities while
knowing that lawsuits were being brought against individuals who downloaded and
distributed music without authorization. Id. He personally received multiple warnings
from various sources – including his father in 2002, his college in 2003, and plaintiffs in
2005 – and he was warned that his activities could subject him to liability of up to
$150,000 per infringement. Id. at 493-94. In spite of these warnings, he continued to
download and distribute copyrighted materials; indeed, even after receiving Sony’s
2005 cease and desist letter, trial evidence shows that defendant continued his
activities for two more years, until Sony filed this lawsuit against him. Id. at 495

[True Earthling]

105. So he was warned multiple times yet continued for 2 more years after a cease and desist letter

Sorry - no sympathy here. He was given multiple chances to avoid this outcome. He brought this on himself.

[qb]

74. RIAA is stupid. According to EFF:

The RIAA’s lawsuit campaign against individual American music fans has failed. It has failed to curtail P2P downloading. It has not persuaded music fans that sharing is equivalent to shoplifting. It has not put a penny into the pockets of artists. It has done little to drive most filesharers into the arms of authorized music services. In fact, the RIAA lawsuits may well be driving filesharers to new technologies that will be much harder for the RIAA’s investigators to infiltrate and monitor.
https://www.eff.org/wp/riaa-v-people-five-years-later

[Romulox]

79. How is this any worse than the War on (people who use) Drugs? Is the defendant white in this case?

[gollygee]

85. He should be fined, but not that much. That's just silly.

Maybe a couple hundred dollars per song. Enough to hurt but not crazy excessive.

[egduj]

88. I don't think Guerrilla Radio is a stupid song...

He also had some Ramones and Red Hot Chili Peppers stuff in there.

I think "stupid" is kinda harsh. There was some good songs in there.

[Odin2005]

99. This is sick. The RIAA is evil.

They wish to stop technological advancement because it hurts their profits.

[MrSlayer]

101. As a musician I find this appalling.

No one is making that much money off of a song. Not even top selling acts like Metallica make more than a dollar per CD sold in their deal. The rest of that money goes back to the scumbag record company. This is a disgrace and this dude should leave the country or do anything he can to avoid paying.

[BOG PERSON]

106. agree

this is an absurd ruling. i'll say what i say in every piracy thread. digital media is infinitely reproducible (assuming that civilization doesn't come to end in the foreseeable future) and therefore has zero value. these record industry guys know they're squeezing blood out of a turnip. its a warning to all us other turnips.