I am honest as the day is five hours long
|
|
|
US court reinstates $675,000 damages for downloading songs
A US APPEALS COURT has increased the damages from $67,500 to $675,000 in a case where a student illegally downloaded and shared 30 songs on the internet, reinstating the original verdict in what has become one of the biggest copyright infringement damage awards.
Physics student Joel Tenenbaum from Rhode Island was sued by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) on behalf of the top four record labels in 2009, resulting in damages of $22,500 per song, for a total of $675,000.
That ruling was later dismissed by US District Judge Nancy Gertner, who knocked a zero off the end because she found the damage award was "uncostitutionally excessive".
However, the music industry counter-appealed and successfully managed to add the zero back onto the already large damages number, primarily on the basis that Gertner had made the case a constitutional issue rather than a common law one, which would have more likely left her reduced penalty in place.
It seems the issue is a technicality of law and that the appeals court found that Gertner's approach was legally wrong more than that the lower damages amount should not be awarded. The court allowed for a further appeal by the defendant to get the amount lowered once more, providing the argument does not challenge the constitutionality of the award. This will likely see the zero drop again, almost making a mockery of the legal system.
The defendant said he was "dumstruck" and that "this is obviously more absurd than it was before," according to the Associated Press. He argues that the music industry has failed to prove it has been hurt by his actions and that the US Copyright Act is unconstitutional, but the appeals court does not agree with his assertions.
Regardless of the technicalities of law, it seems unlikely that Tenenbaum will have to pay the full amount in this case, particularly when the damages awarded in a previous case against a women who downloaded 24 songs were reduced from $1.5m to $54,000. µ
Tags: Internet
Share this:
Share
Jim B. is correct. The US Supreme Court determined in the 1985 case of Dowling vs. United States that copyright infringement, while certainly illegal, is NOT theft. This nonsense about "theft" by the "MAFIAA" is just that, nonsense, and their entire legal team know it. But they also know that if you keep saying something enough times, and pay off enough politicians, sooner or later enough people are going to start believing you for it to matter. That's why they keep spouting this legal nonsense of theirs.
Copyright infringement isn't theft. It has never ever been determined by a court in the US to be considered theft. That is what the RIAA and MPAA want you to think. Copyright infringement is just that. Theft requires denying the owner of their property/possession, and copyright infringement does nothing of the sort.
There is criminal copyright infringement, but that has some extremely specific set of criteria that must be met before it can be considered criminal, and thus charged as a crime. So, please, let's stop making this out as if it is anything other than a civil offense that was pursued by the RIAA.
Secondly, he didn't facilitate anything, as has already been clearly indicated. It is well established as a defense that the RIAA and their minions can't actually prove that anything was distributed except what they themselves downloaded. In other words, they could never, ever claim mass copyright facilitation.
It appears we have some RIAA minions astroturfing this site with their propaganda. Clearly, what I am reading isn't being posted by someone with a lick of common sense. What I see happening is what appears to be a select number of people posting here with the intent of misleading those who are not educated in this area of law.
Accusing this guy of facilitating mass infringement is like accusing him of terrorism, or at least facilitating terrorism. It ain't so and never will be.
Criminal copyright infringement has specific qualifying criteria and nothing like that was even presented in court and never could as criminal prosecution isn't left up to the civil courts.
US copyright laws are not geared to deal with users violating copyright for personal use. So, what this guy did was something else.
Let's not let those MPAA and RIAA mental deficients dictate to everyone what's just punishment and what isn't. We have courts for determining guilt and punishment based on laws. The MPAA and RIAA are despicable agencies, but that aside, we need to recognize that the issue here in this article has nothing to do with the appeals court attempting to enforce punishment. Quite the contrary.
The appeals court made the ruling based on procedural error. And that's all. They sent it back down because the Judge failed to follow a procedure.
The Judge will follow that procedure and then reduce the award back down to something, though more reasonable, is still extremely excessive and not in line with reality.
What the guy did that was different was he allowed his music to be uploaded. Get that? UPLOADED. Essentially he wasn't found guilty of copyright infringement for downloading, rather he lost because he let his music be uploaded. He was also found guilty because his lawyers aren't really very good. There were lots of defenses they could have used that were reasonable.
There is no extortion. Punishment is meant to be a deterrent. Some folks believe they are above the law and can hide behind a PC monitor to commit crimes. It doesn't work that way.
It costs a lot of money to track hackers, develop a case against them with full documentation and procede to trial. The criminal should not only pay for these financial losses, they should pay a hefty fine to discourage future poor judgment.
The U.S. and other countries are working on legislation to make piracy a felony with mandatory prison time. That should change a few attitudes about the benefits of piracy.
No mercy for the pirates but full blown on extortion for the copyright industry?
If i stole a couple of cds of music from the store and ran off with it then i got caught i would be charged for the actual value of the cd plus maybe a bit more for inconveniencing the police but 675,000 USD for a handfull of songs is downright extortion!
Considering this is his first offense
plus the fact that he didnt make money out of the songs by reselling them etc
he should only be charged for the songs actual value and not imaginary value.
Because of this ive vowed out of listening to commercial music even by radio.
Dont buy commercial music and dont pirate them.
Let the music barons go bankrupt.
BUT WHEN YOU FACILITATE "THEFT" ON A GRAND SCALE, SO GO THE DAMAGES.
ITS DEFINITELY CHEAPER TO JUST PAY THE PRICE AT THE STORE. OR GO WITH FM. I GO WITH FM.
There is no problem with piracy until people get caught. Then the whining begins. Pirates know full well that piracy is illegal. Challenging copyright law is a waste of time as you will never win. Copyright laws are designed to protect art. If you want use of the art then pay for it like evey law abiding citizen does or go without.
IMO the penalty for piracy should be a minimum of $10K per copy. A second offense is mandatory jail time in addition to a triple fine. So people are so dumb they don't learn from the first conviction.
of something that already is a mockery.
I keep waiting for sanity to overtake the world....
I may be waiting for eternity