• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Student ordered to pay $650,000 for downloads

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/music/story/2009/08/01/downloading-payment-boston.html#socialcomments said:
A federal jury has ordered a Boston University graduate student who admitted illegally downloading and sharing music online to pay $675,000 to four record labels.

Joel Tenenbaum, of Providence, R.I., admitted in court that he downloaded and distributed 30 songs. The only issue for the jury to decide was how much in damages to award.

Under federal law, the recording companies were entitled to $750 to $30,000 per infringement. But the law allows as much as $150,000 per track if the jury finds the infringements were wilful. The maximum jurors could have awarded in Tenenbaum's case was $4.5 million.

Jurors ordered Tenenbaum late Friday to pay $22,500 for each incident of copyright infringement, effectively finding that his actions were wilful.

The attorney for the 25-year-old student had asked the jury earlier Friday to "send a message" to the music industry by awarding only minimal damages.

Not only is the law inconsistently applied, it flies in the face of the will of the people. How many people in the United States actually want to see downloading made illegal so people can face such steep penalties? Definitely not the majority.

The U.S. continues to prove that it is looking out for the assets of the barons of industry before they are looking out for the welfare and security of citizens. $650,000 for 30 songs is an outrageous penalty, and it could have been even higher.

The student said that if the verdict sticks, he will have to file for bankruptcy. Another life ruined, all because the music industry wants to set an example. These companies are the ones destroying music, not the downloaders.

Now please excuse me while I download 50 songs in protest.
 
Not only is the law inconsistently applied, it flies in the face of the will of the people. How many people in the United States actually want to see downloading made illegal so people can face such steep penalties? Definitely not the majority.

The U.S. continues to prove that it is looking out for the assets of the barons of industry before they are looking out for the welfare and security of citizens. $650,000 for 30 songs is an outrageous penalty, and it could have been even higher.

The student said that if the verdict sticks, he will have to file for bankruptcy. Another life ruined, all because the music industry wants to set an example. These companies are the ones destroying music, not the downloaders.

Now please excuse me while I download 50 songs in protest.

The funny thing is that this will end up costing them more than the kid who did it.

I guess excessive fines don't count in this case.
 
My question is, how did they find out this guy was downloading in the first place? Did they sneak into his computer, monitor his bandwidth? How?
 
My question is, how did they find out this guy was downloading in the first place? Did they sneak into his computer, monitor his bandwidth? How?

They put trackers in the torrent files and monitor the IP's it goes to.

I think after that they have to get the rest of the information from your ISP.

You want to know something else though, the movie production companies are intentionally leaking some of their movies on the net to gauge popularity of it before it hits the theaters.
 
My question is, how did they find out this guy was downloading in the first place? Did they sneak into his computer, monitor his bandwidth? How?

He was not caught downloading, but rather uploading. He was using a peer 2 peer program (Kazaa) which like any other P2p also uploads. And that there is what he got busted for. If he had merely downloaded from web, usenet, FTP, etc.. he would have been just fine. In order for these programs to work, you IP address needs to be made available to other users so that they can connect and download your songs. It is by that method it is easy peazy to get one's IP, then determine who by subpoenaing the ISP.
 
He was not caught downloading, but rather uploading. He was using a peer 2 peer program (Kazaa) which like any other P2p also uploads. And that there is what he got busted for. If he had merely downloaded from web, usenet, FTP, etc.. he would have been just fine. In order for these programs to work, you IP address needs to be made available to other users so that they can connect and download your songs. It is by that method it is easy peazy to get one's IP, then determine who by subpoenaing the ISP.

Oh I see, so it was poor security measures on his part. Kazaa? Ew... it is overrun by the music industry with its fake files. I switched out of that a long time ago. I use Limewire now, and torrents. Both allow me to cloak my IP. Not that I have anything to worry about... for now, downloading is not illegal in Canada. Hopefully my government has the sense to preserve that.

In any case, the penalty was way too steep in this case. The government has proven that its copyright infringement laws are all about protecting the wealth of companies, and they fly in the face of democracy. Most people support downloading.
 
Oh I see, so it was poor security measures on his part. Kazaa? Ew... it is overrun by the music industry with its fake files. I switched out of that a long time ago. I use Limewire now, and torrents. Both allow me to cloak my IP. Not that I have anything to worry about... for now, downloading is not illegal in Canada. Hopefully my government has the sense to preserve that.

In any case, the penalty was way too steep in this case. The government has proven that its copyright infringement laws are all about protecting the wealth of companies, and they fly in the face of democracy. Most people support downloading.

Copyright time lengths are asinine in length.

It used to be 14 years with an opportunity to renew it for another 14 years and now it is the life of the author plus 70 years and for corporations it can be between 95 years and 120 years.
 
Absolutely ridiculous...the punishment doesn't match the crime. I realize that yes, illegal downloading is a crime, and if caught then yes it should be punishable to the fullest extent of the law. That having been said, this case is FAR beyond what the fullest extent of the law should be. If an adult walked into a store and stole 2 cd's (approximately the same amount of music) the result would probably be misdemeanor theft and a small retribution charge. In fact this theft would even be more severe, as you would have to toss in the cost of the media in which said music was contained. I have no problem with media companies feeling they need to make an example but honestly copyright infringement suits of this stature do not scare people away from illegal downloading, but instead draw attention to the absolute ridiculousness of the charge. It would be like speeding tickets costing a quarter of a million dollars, but the tickets would only be handed out to a random driver going 6 miles over the speed limit, while every other speeder on the road would be ignored. In order for there to be some liability the risk has to be real.
 
Last edited:
Not only is the law inconsistently applied, it flies in the face of the will of the people. How many people in the United States actually want to see downloading made illegal so people can face such steep penalties? Definitely not the majority.

The U.S. continues to prove that it is looking out for the assets of the barons of industry before they are looking out for the welfare and security of citizens. $650,000 for 30 songs is an outrageous penalty, and it could have been even higher.

The student said that if the verdict sticks, he will have to file for bankruptcy. Another life ruined, all because the music industry wants to set an example. These companies are the ones destroying music, not the downloaders.

Now please excuse me while I download 50 songs in protest.
So if you're employer decided to not pay you one week, because he decided he wanted you to work that week for free, you'd be okay with it?
 
So if you're employer decided to not pay you one week, because he decided he wanted you to work that week for free, you'd be okay with it?

Your strawman is unintelligent and poorly constructed.

Would that employer also be fining me $650,000 if I refuse to work for free?
 
Well you seem to think that a record company shouldn't make any money and give their product away for free. That's pretty asinine.
 
Well you seem to think that a record company shouldn't make any money and give their product away for free. That's pretty asinine.

Please cite where I said I think record companies should make zero profits and give their product away for free.

Thanks.
 
The news report is misleading.

He was not found guilty of "downloading".

His crime was in making it 'available for others', allowing them to download the files from his computer.


Would that employer also be fining me $650,000 if I refuse to work for free?
Some people would turn that firing around and attempt to sue their employer for that amount if they felt they were wrongly terminated.


Regardless the fine imposed on the individual is excessive.
 
Regardless the fine imposed on the individual is excessive

This is my main beef. The recording industry can continue its crusade all it wants. I find it mostly entertaining, because it's not going to succeed, not unless the government shuts down the entire internet.

I just find it unfortunate that people like this student have to be sacrificed on the alter of their profit status quo in order to serve as some kind of example for people who download and share. All it's doing is pissing people off and having the opposite effect.
 
I find it mostly entertaining, because it's not going to succeed, not unless the government shuts down the entire internet.

... All it's doing is pissing people off and having the opposite effect.
I understand that thos who want something for nothing are po'd, but I don't know if it actually is having the opposite effect.

I feel the fine is excessive, but that examples do need to be set.
And lets be clear hear.
Contrary to the wording being used in the article and by the RIAA, this isn't about downloading, but the act of making available and allowing others to download it from a his computer. (Distributing)

The government doesn't have to shut down the internet.
All a government has to do (not that it should) is make the above act, and the act of 'downloading' copyrighted works without without the holders permission illegal, and then engage in criminal prosecution.
Once people begin to be burdened with criminal convictions that effect the rest of their life, most of the people doing so (downloading), will sharply decrease.
 
I understand that thos who want something for nothing are po'd, but I don't know if it actually is having the opposite effect.

I feel the fine is excessive, but that examples do need to be set.
And lets be clear hear.
Contrary to the wording being used in the article and by the RIAA, this isn't about downloading, but the act of making available and allowing others to download it from a his computer. (Distributing)

The government doesn't have to shut down the internet.
All a government has to do (not that it should) is make the above act, and the act of 'downloading' copyrighted works without without the holders permission illegal, and then engage in criminal prosecution.
Once people begin to be burdened with criminal convictions that effect the rest of their life, most of the people doing so (downloading), will sharply decrease.

I don't agree. There have already been several cases like this appearing in the news and people are still downloading and distributing all over the world. People won't care because they won't feel threatened. What these companies do to people in the United States has zero effect on people like me who live outside of the U.S. The power of the recording industry has limits, not matter how hard they try to strong arm the public into obeying them.

I for one have zero intention of stopping my downloads, and I will distribute those files on demand. I hate watching t.v. because of the commercials, and DVDs are too expensive, so I'm still going to download my shows.

These companies don't realize that the best marketing is the most honest marketing. Create a product that in of itself is something people will want to go out and buy. They have to provide positive incentives which will make people buy their intellectual property, instead of download it. Instead, they are going the route of negative incentives, which will only make consumers lose confidence in their products.

I personally won't respond to bullies.
 
Not only is the law inconsistently applied, it flies in the face of the will of the people. How many people in the United States actually want to see downloading made illegal so people can face such steep penalties? Definitely not the majority.

The U.S. continues to prove that it is looking out for the assets of the barons of industry before they are looking out for the welfare and security of citizens. $650,000 for 30 songs is an outrageous penalty, and it could have been even higher.

The student said that if the verdict sticks, he will have to file for bankruptcy. Another life ruined, all because the music industry wants to set an example. These companies are the ones destroying music, not the downloaders.

Now please excuse me while I download 50 songs in protest.

I think the individual should be fined no more than the market value of the songs if he paid for them at a store. And if they are going to fine people for distribution. Then the record company should have to prove in a court of law exactly how many people this individual distributed this song too and still make him pay market value of this song.For example he uploads to 70 people and this song can be purchased for dollar on a legal download site then that fine for distributing that song should be 70 dollars assuming those each of those 70 people fully downloaded a whole song from that individual and not just partial download. If they can't prove this then they have no business making people pay these excessive fines.
 
I don't agree.
Honestly, that is ok.


People won't care because they won't feel threatened.
Hence why illegalization of downloading will be the next step with criminal prosecutions.


What these companies do to people in the United States has zero effect on people like me who live outside of the U.S.
Until it is illegalized.
At which point the same thing happening to hacker will happen.



I for one have zero intention of stopping my downloads, and I will distribute those files on demand. I hate watching t.v. because of the commercials, and DVDs are too expensive, so I'm still going to download my shows.
Don't go and tell on yourself.
Personally, I would stay away from torrents and file sharing programs.
The risk is greater with using them.



Create a product that in of itself is something people will want to go out and buy.
They already have one.
It is those who want something for nothing that are taking advantage.



They have to provide positive incentives which will make people buy their intellectual property, instead of download it.
The positive incentive is, you get the product. But that incentive is no match when people think they can take it for free.
 
Hence why illegalization of downloading will be the next step with criminal prosecutions.

Won't happen in places where it is needed the most, like China. The recording industry can try to lobby every government in the world, but it won't work... and even if it does, good luck tracking everyone who downloads.

Until it is illegalized.
At which point the same thing happening to hacker will happen.

The digital and internet community will just compensate with anonymizers, as they are already doing.

Don't go and tell on yourself.
Personally, I would stay away from torrents and file sharing programs.
The risk is greater with using them.

No there isn't. Stop fearmongering on behalf of the recording industry. I use an anonymizer so my downloading is untraceable. You should use one anyway because some torrents are not secure and your computer can theoretically be infultrated via exploited bugs.

They already have one.
It is those who want something for nothing that are taking advantage.

No they don't. There is no difference between buying a DVD and downloading one in terms of product value. I just want to watch the movie, I don't care about the excess packaging (which is bad for the environment, btw). Once I watch the movie, I usually delete it... and if it's a bad movie, I will never watch it again. If it's a really good movie, I might buy the DVD.

The positive incentive is, you get the product. But that incentive is no match when people think they can take it for free.

Not true. First of all, the recording industry, along with the movie industry, has perpetuated the lie that they have lost billions of dollars. If you do a bit of research, you will discover that this figure is not based on records of their corporate bank accounts, but rather on the calculation that one download equals one lost sale.

In actual fact, many people who download end up buying, but this is never factored into their published profit losses. They're not even reporting their losses with honesty, so why should I even care how their company is being affected? All they care about is villainizing people who are simply using a tool of a new, digital era, where content sharing is seamless and universal.

I think the benefits to human kind outweigh the costs. If these industries can't stay affloat, then it's evolution in progress. Something else will come along that is compatible with the information age, that actually wants to share and be open source.
 
Last edited:
Not only is the law inconsistently applied, it flies in the face of the will of the people. How many people in the United States actually want to see downloading made illegal so people can face such steep penalties? Definitely not the majority.

So why don't you get your Congressman to revise the law?

Seems like that's an easier way of dealing with all of this.
 
Won't happen in places where it is needed the most, like China. The recording industry can try to lobby every government in the world, but it won't work... and even if it does, good luck tracking everyone who downloads.
Once the illegalization and criminal prosecution starts, it will continue, even into China.


The digital and internet community will just compensate with anonymizers, as they are already doing.
If you really think you are safe using an anonymizer. Engage it, spoof your email address and then send the President an email that would get the Secret Service's attention.
It won't be long before you find out just how safe you aren't.



No there isn't. Stop fearmongering on behalf of the recording industry. I use an anonymizer so my downloading is untraceable. You should use one anyway because some torrents are not secure and your computer can theoretically be infultrated via exploited bugs.
Ha, ha, ha. Doh!
It is not fear mongering when it is true.
But like I said. Try out that little experiment to see just how safe you aren't.

Also, like I said, I would not use torrents or file sharing programs because the risk is greater.
Why is the risk greater?
Because that is where the focus currently resides.



No they don't. There is no difference between buying a DVD and downloading one in terms of product value. I just want to watch the movie, ...
The value of the product is the same, regardless if it is stolen it or not.
You took possession of something that you are not legally allowed to.
If you want to watch the movie, then pay for it.



Not true. First of all, the recording industry, along with the movie industry, has perpetuated the lie that they have lost billions of dollars. If you do a bit of research, you will discover that this figure is not based on records of their corporate bank accounts, but rather on the calculation that one download equals one lost sale.
I do not like that they exaggerate the figures, but that still does not excuse one who engages in the activity.

But no, the positive incentive is that you get the product for personal use.
If you wish to engage in something that is illegal, go ahead, I am not going to stop you.
But I do find it ridiculous that you try and defend/justify your illegal behavior.
That is part of the criminal thought process.



In actual fact, many people who download end up buying, but this is never factored into their published profit losses.
Very few people actual buy any significant portion of what they download. Just more justifying.



They're not even reporting their losses with honesty, so why should I even care how their company is being affected?
More of the criminal thought process.


All they care about is villainizing people who are simply using a tool of a new, digital era, where content sharing is seamless and universal.
Sharing is done with content that is meant to be shared. That which isn't, becomes taking something for nothing, something you legally are not entitled to take.
Care to share more of this criminal thought process?
 
Well you seem to think that a record company shouldn't make any money and give their product away for free. That's pretty asinine.

The better question to this response is if a media company has their product continuously taken for free, what is the whole point in releasing as such?

You know what grinds my gears is that almost the same exact ground that defends pirating and downloads is the same crowd that whines about DRM and copy protection. The whole reason we have expanding DRM and CP schemes is a result of increase in un-authorized distribution of media. They act as if this is also some devilish new scheme by evil corporations.

What most fail to understand is that their is an economic impact that can come right back to hit them on the @$$. The best example are TV shows popularly downloaded. This last spring on FOX they had two Scifi shows; Terminator series and Dollhouse. Both with equally dismal ratings. Yet one was canceled, the other given a new season for one simple reason. It comes down to who produced said series, and thus who will retain DVD revenue. The Terminator franchise is owned by Warner Brothers, yet it aired on FOX. Dollhouse on the other hand is produced by FOX studios, thus FOX will receive a portion of DVD sales.

Last year we saw the end of SciFi channel's Stargate Atlantis and Battlestar Galactic. Both of these also had similar ratings, yet Stargate is owned by MGM, Battlestar was produced by NBC (owner of Scifi channel). While Battlestar was immensely more expensive to produce, SciFi did keep it on the air longer that it normally would for one sole reason; they will retain DVD sales. Stargate on the other hand provides Scfi with no DVD sales, so even though it got about the same ratings, and was much cheaper to produce that show was ended.

Now let's explore further to the HBO and Showtime series. These of course are produced by HBO and Showtime themselves, aired for free on their network without commercials. So then these shows alone are dependent solely on the expectation now of DVD sales. For HBO and Showtime it will take a minimum of 5 years/100 episodes before they can resell for syndication. Before that these costly shows are reliant on one thing financially; DVD sales. Hence why HBO and Showtime are the most proactive in stopping the spread of pirated DVDs of their shows.

Now I don't think it takes a lot of economic theory here to figure out in all these examples the result if DVD sales begin to slow while we have a rise in pirating. Point one is that studios are willing to let shows survive longer than they should because of one expectation and hope; lost ad revenue will be regained through DVD sales. Thus the a slowdown in sales could/would only hastened the end of said show.

Point two is that the days of free as in beer airings of TV shows are ending, at least for the networks. What I mean is that networks no longer can support shows by simply using the ad generated model. They are dependent upon the sales to consumers.

For game companies, more and more games are no longer something that can be chewed out every few months. I believe the average production time is coming close to two years. That is two years of a burn of expenses without any revenue generated. The result of the industry over the past decade as seen the death of independent small house developers either going bankrupt or being purchased by larger firms. The result has been much less in innovation and risk taking, and increase in bland generic titles....hello Madden 2010. Games of course are ever so popular to pirate, and of course each copy downloaded is a copy of revenue lost to the firm that just burned x millions, all of which needs to be paid back to investors.

The spread of pirating also limits the ability now of small/independent developers in making an actual living. On a personal note I happen to know this one person who sells a application for $10, to which users who purchase get a lifetime of upgrades. That is ten freaking dollars, yet his applications are seen quite often being pirated. This has been much discussed, and to date he has not enacted in draconian methods to prevent this or limit the ability of people to crack it. So this does affect me personally, me who has spent the whole whopping $10. If at some point he determines it is no longer financially viable to continue, I lose out because some people are too freaking cheap to spend a measly $10.

In summary, there is a very real world consequence to a massive increase in the spread of pirated media. TV shows, HBO series, games, and software are dependent upon revenue to be able to continue. Doesn't take rocket science to figure out if the revenue drops and it no longer makes economic sense to continue, who loses? Everyone does.
 
So why don't you get your Congressman to revise the law?

Seems like that's an easier way of dealing with all of this.

You already know I'm Canadian, so this is either a bait question, or you honestly forgot. In any case, downloading and sharing are not illegal yet in Canada, and to ensure that it stays that way, I have already written to my MP several times.
 
Once the illegalization and criminal prosecution starts, it will continue, even into China.

Really? Under whose authority? Even at top levels, pirating is the source of China's innovation. It's why companies are reluctant to bring their intellectual property to their market anymore.

If you really think you are safe using an anonymizer. Engage it, spoof your email address and then send the President an email that would get the Secret Service's attention.
It won't be long before you find out just how safe you aren't.

Why would I do something so stupid as to engage the secret service? lol.


Ha, ha, ha. Doh!
It is not fear mongering when it is true.
But like I said. Try out that little experiment to see just how safe you aren't.


Downloading isn't illegal in Canada, nor is sharing. I use an anonymizer anyway, just because it's more secure for peer 2 peer.

Also, like I said, I would not use torrents or file sharing programs because the risk is greater.
Why is the risk greater?
Because that is where the focus currently resides.

They'll only catch a minority of people... I'm not really worried. If they want to invest billions in going after every single person who downloads, they can be my guest. I'll just laugh as their industry goes under. It makes no sense for them to invest more money than profits lost, which is why they are engaged in a select few high profile cases like the one we are discussing now.


The value of the product is the same, regardless if it is stolen it or not.
You took possession of something that you are not legally allowed to.
If you want to watch the movie, then pay for it.

If they want me to stop downloading, then they should stop making DVDs. :2wave:

I do not like that they exaggerate the figures, but that still does not excuse one who engages in the activity.


The moral argument is insufficient in the democratic world. The vast majority of people download and see nothing wrong with it. That moral imperative should be written into law. Instead, corporate powers are lobbying governments with their money, and this is overriding democracy.

But no, the positive incentive is that you get the product for personal use.
If you wish to engage in something that is illegal, go ahead, I am not going to stop you.
But I do find it ridiculous that you try and defend/justify your illegal behavior.
That is part of the criminal thought process.

It is illegal because of a minority that is lobbying government to do it. Democratically, the majority do not agree with this assessment of the situation. Patenting and copyright law both need reform in the modern arena. The people have spoken. They have defined the modern trend.

Very few people actual buy any significant portion of what they download. Just more justifying.

I realize this, but I'm saying that this should be factored into their profit losses. One download does not always equal one lost sale.

More of the criminal thought process.

If you're going to start dishing out insults in substitution of rational arguments, then this debate is over.

Sharing is done with content that is meant to be shared. That which isn't, becomes taking something for nothing, something you legally are not entitled to take.
Care to share more of this criminal thought process?

I'm not taking anything. I'm copying. They still have their product in hand.

Once again, continue with the ad homs and I won't be replying to you.
 
I always wondered about this from a property rights stance. I buy the CD, it's mine. Period. If I want to make a copy and give it to my son, that should be my right.

What's next? Cars? "Well sir, YOU bought the car, not your son. He cannot drive it unless you pay an additional fee."

Not the same, I understand, but in my mind this is simply too heavy handed. I like jamesrages solution. At least limit the fines to that of what the song can be legally purchased for. The punitive side of this thing is just ridiculous.
 
Back
Top Bottom