Tenenbaum 'piracy' case is all over bar the shouting

Heh, why not make it $1000000000 per song...

Where the F* did they come up with $750 anyways?

Damn crazy ass yanks :)

*Flame on*

Oh, Erik, I'll indulge. Someone steals your TV from your house and ruins it. The court says "Oh, we'll give you $400 which is about the price a used TV of that class would go for in an appliance repair shop." Think you'd be happy?

Troll Feeder your example is not valid as it relates to "owning" physical property. The case is about digital downloading where nothing physical is owned as such. So digital songs (mp3/mp4 whatever) are what, 99 cents (I'm in uk so guessing US price) on something like iTunes? Which also inlcudes Apple's slice of pie. So in that perspective is $750 or more still a relative punishment?

With what you said, there are actually very unhappy people on the platter of served justice.

But big companies or "cartels" are enjoying a shower of justice on the backs of regular joes that do not have any at all! Everybody deserve the right discipline! That's the point of justice altogether, right? Or is it still the cliché, of "Oh what can I get away with?"

Sure, big companies could sue, but the justified response by the courts would have to be to fish out whom ever shared songs from the litigated root point share folder! And tell the "cartels to wait till every sharer is well accounted for in court! Follow the dominoes! And get every one to pay. Now that would be true justice!

But the courts are taken advantage of by both sides by the short cuts of the recently new laws on copyright.

Show me in the law where it says there is a difference between physical property and digital property and I'll agree with you. I'll give you a head start, however, and tell you that you won't find it.

Just because YOU perceive a difference between physical and digital theft doesn't mean the LAW perceives the same difference. And that's where all of these arguments fail. Theft is theft. The law says the victim is entitled to damages from said theft. The jury decides what is an appropriate amount for those damages.

@ Troll Feeder

If this is the case virtual money will have to be accounted for at the physical banks? What you just said has nothing to stand on "As of yet" because I didn't see yet banks with that kind of economic behaviour. Imagine the exchange from Cyber money to Real money?

I think the Inquirer did have a piece on this a while back.

I'm not saying it won't happen though, actually I see it happening in the near future and riddle with abuse that will bring everything down!

is but a contract between those who have something and those who do not, it doesn't matter unless you get caught.

I am not so sure that this case is over. The Judge grossly erred in not allowing the Fair Use defense even if it may or may not be futile, in essence determining the outcome before it started, automatically guaranteeing an appeal to the Higher Courts because this Judge did not want to go against Congress and strike down the Copyright Laws put in place. The issue is not what the current Court view of Fair Use is now, but what the view of Fair Use was at the time of the supposed crime.

Would I be happy? Actually - *yes*. Provided it was directly comparable to the quality of the item I'd previously had - which is, of course, the problem.

New for old is all very nice, but at the end of the day I'm quite happy with what I already had, otherwise it would have been replaced..

It would have been cheaper and more convenient if Tenenbaum had just asked the judge before starting up the legal machinery. It seems she could just have told him, "No, I'm not having that, so don't even bother trying".

The jury might be excused for feeling a bit of a fifth wheel, but what do I - a foreigner and a mere subject crushed under the heel of royalty - know about the home of democracy?

Meanwhile at the Somali coast...

Not to be an ass(but you're so good at it, Jason) but the US of A IS NOT and never has been a democracy. We are, and have been since George Washington, a Constitutional Republic. People like to disagree with me, but in my mind continuing to call the US a democracy is ignorant and dangerous. Look it up, democracies are a cancer unto themselves, the Founding Fathers ridiculed the idea of a democracy.

The common man cannot handle democracy, his selfishness and greed will ever kill any country that tries to give true equality of the vote. They will always use the vote to get themselves a "fair share" of the pot, thereby murdering the country that they claim to love.

Yeah, lets have the judge remove the main defense right before trial.

Umm, can you say APPEAL????

That's also a fairly limited viewpoint of fair use.

I guess the thing to ask is, what is beyond the scope of watering down copyright law via personal downloading in the constitution. Hmm. What overrides that? Hmmm. There is an answer, but fascist judges (judges linked to businesses) won't see one.

As one mentioned before fairer share of the pot is right. People generally will. That's a GOOD THING.

It's only when it is unreasonable, that it can over do things. which with an educated and smart electorate, problems would not arise. But with cuts in education so corporate taxes can remain low, an educated electorate, and educated body of congress is not what we have.

You see for the past 40 years, it's been big business, which has NO LIFE, which has been instituting crushing 'reforms' [how can reform move backwards?]. It's not a reform. It's fascism. Not the kind we remember, the kind just before what we remember.

The courts have been bending over the American people, via republic rules, for a very long time. If anything, this lack of connection with the people.... instead the politicians currying favor to these corporations.....are ruining America far more, and far more in REALITY, then the ever reaching quest of equality for the normal populace has ever done here in America.

There were conflictual precedents that needed to be weighed in. One was in favor of the person, the other, the corporation. This judge stated that the American Corporation's rights...that it's precedent...was stronger than your OWN. Good job judge. Way to be a bad one.

Human wants are unending. So are rich peoples. Guess who is getting their way? hmmm.

Quit looking at SYMPTOMS of problems, and blaming liberal

If you see someone blaming the average person, odds are he's making a mountain out of a molehill....why? Because he's only narrowly focused on.....THE SYMPTOM OF THE MUCH LARGER PROBLEM.

Some of the guys crack me up. The common 1700 man couldn't handle democracy, the common 2009 man with corporation brain-itis can't either.

It's funny all of those people don't realize they are doing the same thing as the average person wanting more...except they're doing it for $$$, not for ways to sustain their life or, in this case, liberty.

It's the combination of both democracy and it's constitution that makes America work.

It's not either/or.

It's solely possible for this experiment to work when BOTH sides are looked at realistically. Monetarily isn't a concern. Because the debt based Anglo - dutch liberal (in name only) imperial monetary system...you know the one that makes the bottom line the ONLY point of things, then yeah.

But we, under Hamilton developed the American credit system. Which is NOT what we currently employ. That was the monetary system that could balance the democarcy/constitutional republic.

Now you're right, the public can't...but it's not the public who's abusing...it's the corporations...using democracy....in the bad way....to alter our republic. Some of these judges just don't really know how far off base they are. Neither do some people.

But an American credit system, that's the way to go.

Too bad judges are concerned mainly with protecting corporation's rights. They were given as many rights as you, initially, but over the past 100 years, they now have far more rights than an individual person.

Again, this witch-hunt is so unconstitutional it's hilarious. But corporations tend to muddy the waters don't they?

I bet, like most of the other people that get hit with lawsuits/trials...they are suing their best customers.

Who downloads the most music? Simple silly, the same people who buy the most music.

Who downloads the most movies? Simple silly, the same people who go to the movie theater the most.

Sad. But the tone as I've been using in this post, I have to put the proper contextual qualifiers in. Overall this is nothing. They treat you far worse in many other areas. 6 months in prison, or a lifetime of slavery (forward speaking not past). Or death. Hmm.

It's going to be a fun october. Unless you're in the stock market.

Deconstruct the physical economy (deflation), to save the monetary system which is going through (inflation)...trending to (hyper-inflation).

In other words, to pay off the debt, shut down everything.

How does that old song go....A-N-T-I-C-I-P-A-T-I-O-N....anticipaaaaaa..aa...tion

So as you can see, this mere symptom of the problem, is quite severe, but properly put in context. Enjoy.

The only good Pirate is in prison or dead. Reality bites for criminals.

I don't think it will happen, but between Tenenbaum's honesty and the RIAA's antics, nullification is a possibility. My money however is on a near minimal award for the RIAA.

I guess your $400 stolen TV should be reimbursed for $300,000 to $60,000,000?

I got fired in 2005 cuz an asshole at work was downloading pirated warez from Kazaa! to use on the job, when I pointed it out to the boss I got fired. I'm still fighting "wrongful dismissal" but at least they paid for genuine copy of Autocad (whoopee). Guess what, my new job pays almost 2x as much and much better environment. So it wasn't all bad.
(Thieves are still a pack of assholes)
(just to illustrate a related point, I listed my 1997 Ford for $1,000,000 on Kijiji. You can't pay it? Take a hike. Don't like the price? Beat it punk. Oh, you think I won't sell it? Who says I wanted to?? My neighbor had his house for sale for the last 30 years, exact same scenario)

Troll Feeder you said;

"Show me in the law where it says there is a difference between physical property and digital property and I'll agree with you. I'll give you a head start, however, and tell you that you won't find it."

Um... let's see there's Dowling v. United States (1985).

See(http://techdirt.com/articles/20030922/027245.shtml)

And (http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/175)

And (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11662) from whence the following can be found:

"The notion of copyright infringement as theft was clearly addressed in the 1985 Supreme Court decision of Dowling v. United States. While this case involved hard goods (phonograph records), Justice Harry Blackmun was most certainly speaking of abstract property (copyrights) when he wrote these words in his majority decision overturning Dowling's conviction of interstate transport of stolen property: "(copyright infringement) does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud... The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use."

I also seem to recall, a Judge chiding an RIAA lawyer for improperly conflating theft with copyright infringement. Perhaps someone else will look up that reference for you.

copying something ain't muthafuckin theft -- if someone had magic powers and could abracadabra duplicate a Television, that's too muthafuckin bad for the TV manufacturers, and too muthafuckin bad for capitalism -- time to find a better economic plan for the human race...muthafuckas

Copyright laws cover both (illegal) use and distribution. Use without payment is theft. Distribution without payment is also theft.

If these are the best Lawyers that could be rustled up for his defence, we're all screwed!

Fancy letting him admit to using Kazza and downloading songs...

Rule number 1... Never, and I mean *NEVER* admit to anything.

Given the track record the RIAA have in identifying the wrong people in piracy cases, putting reasonable doubt into the mind of the judge was the best hope you had.
Trying to convince a judge that you should be allowed to download music for free is not going to work.

As for the calculated value, they are, as usual with US law, a joke. Comparing it to stealing a TV is a bad comparison. You have not removed the music from anywhere, all you have done is copied it and maybe prevented a sale.
If you were caught putting super glue in the lock of Walmart, preventing them from selling anything for an hour while they get a lock smith while customers go to a different store, I wonder how they would calculate the damages.

Sometimes people through their manipulation want us believe certain things. Theft and copyright infringement. Physical and digital property. And intellectual property. Are they all the same? For people like RIAA they would like to them to be. However this is not the case.

In the case of the physical property, a case of stealing means that one is deprived illegally from a certain physical object. That means that the object is not in his possession anymore neither can he make use of it.

On the other hand digital property, if it is stolen, the owner is not deprived of his object and can still maintain owner and usage rights to this object.

Assuming you have a music store. If someone steals your CDs, then you have no product to sell as you (physically) loose your merchandise. On the other hand should someone make available the music that relies in your CDs, then this does not mean that you loose your merchandise, but rather you may loose the willingness of purchasing public to buy your offer. You could be damaged or not. It is not all that clear.

Now things get more complicated, if the digital property is actually the merchandise. I mean, let's use for the above example instead of a music CD store, an eshop that sells digital music files. The case does not change by much. If someone provides (illegally) the music files for free, then there is a problem. However, you can still trade and you dont loose your rights upon the products you have and offer.

In both cases there is certainly a problem (and damage). Not so easily quantifiable though, as there are arguments from both sides.

In a way, it is similar with software piracy. You cannot offer a product for free, however you want people to have access to it. You can then make money in direct or indirect ways ( I guess this is why you see the record companies fight for piracy while artists mostly dont - they can make more money by being more known rather than selling a little more CDs to a restricted audience).

Radio used to be a way for the music industry to achieve this. However with the advent of internet, personnal music players and ease of share, this is loosing ground.

Differences between intellectual property and physical property are endless. Well, it's like comparing apples to oranges, and any laws regarding them, anywhere, are extremely different too. By the way it's pretty foolish to ever consider them as similar things.

For example, you can't "own" someone else's intellectual property. If you buy a movie DVD, you don't have the movie, you have just acquired the rights to do exactly what it's owner wants you to do (e.g. watching), when he wants, how he wants and until he wants.

Also, if you steal a car, you're subtracting it from its owner. But you can't subtract the movie from it's owner by pirating and watching a DVD. At most, you're just not being a potential money sender.

That may be wrong, but surely is not stealing.

We are watching you. We are waiting for either of you to @#$K up. When either of you do, We will pounce and have no mercy. The same mercy you have shown to these people.

We are waiting, watching, ever vigilant. Be warned, be afraid. Our voice will be heard. RIAA and the rife corruption of the DOJ will not be permitted to continue much longer.

Courts will continue to prosecute pirates so those in denial might as well get use to it. Copyright laws exist to prevent illegal use or distribution. Pay me now or pay me later, but you will pay and later will be a lot more expensive.

Courts will continue to prosecute pirates so those in denial might as well get use to it. Copyright laws exist to prevent illegal use or distribution. Pay me now or pay me later, but you will pay and later will be a lot more expensive.

If there's no theft in piracy there's no theft in slavery.

Another pirate gets to pay up $675,000. Too bad he didn't get five years in prison to ponder his crimes.