File Sharing Student Fined $675K

It is the civic duty of every patriotic citizen to ignore stupid/unfair/unreasonable laws. I am glad the founders of this country felt the same. Is Tenenbaum a thief? That is a question to be answered when the PEOPLE make the laws and not corporations, lobbyists and elitists. In the mean time, Tenenbaum is no Bolingbroke.

First, Fair Use was a stupid argument. There are specific requirements for Fair Use, and unless he was in some other way actually using the material for other than personal listening, Fair Use doesn't enter into it at all.

Second, the artists don't get this money. You are infringing the music companies' publishing rights, not the artists. Royalties are paid to songwriters, not the musicians and bands, and the way royalties are distributed is generally unfair to the majority of songwriters. If you want to read an excellent article about file sharing and music companies and money by Janis Ian, see http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html

Blunt fact: most artists make most of their money playing live shows, not from record sales.

Joel Tenenbaum stole music, he broke the law, case closed. If you're going to willfully steal something, you're going to face the consequences sooner or later. It may not be a fine, it may be you reading a comment on this or some other website from someone who believes you're a thieving, selfish brat and that there are many others who feel the same way.

God damn, my generation is full twats like this, it's pathetic.

Well downloading music is done every minute of everyday, so is speeding if you get caught you get fined 100$ , $200
It does not turn into a federal case, this has been blown way out of proportion
the downloads are good but not near as good as originals they are recordings more or less wma,mp3
or what ever format you choose everyone knows what kind of people run music companies just ask any artist that has ever been signed
My question is why would they spend near a million dollars on a suit that they knew would never get anything near that in damages they knew
he did not have the ability to pay them
Clearly they are making money or they could not afford the throw away the money on the suit
so it is not about the money if that was the case they would have took the money and run They have bribed DJ's for years to play thier songs to get them heard what is the difference thier songs are getting heard people are still buying music
They got this though in thier head because you DL music that is a sale they should have made
Most of the time it is just a way to hear the music before purchase lets face it some music is crap they just throw this stuff out there you may have one good song on an album and the rest is crap can you take the crap back not like 90% of what you purchase you can he these jeans do not fit well they album does not fit take it back a
and tell them its crap see what happens
Just like when sony paid the HD dvd manufacture to shut down they monopolised the industry no one has said a word you cannot get HD dvd now unless its bluray
both sides are dirty in all of these incedents
it is just how deep you look

Laws were to protect people. Yes, you can break the law, it's your free will. If you get caught you should pay the fine or do the time. Plain and simple...

The RIAA are legal criminals. This group has dictated how music is going to be sold, what music gets played. This group has made millions off musicians. Some may remember during the days of the cassette that an extra 2 bucks was charged for each blank cassette sold. why, because that may mean someone may copy a song, not illegal back then. So now this group of powerful men are losing that power, and like any animal backed into a corner they are trying to get that power back, through the courts and lobbist.

If coping songs back in the day wasn't illegal, what is the difference in coping songs off the net.
My guess is they have no control over that venue, and we the people have learned we don't need them dictating what we listen to.. Long live the people.

My mother taught me that taking things that one didn't own was stealing, and whether or not you steal a paper clip or a million bucks, it is still stealing.

But nobody in their right mind would punish the stealer of a pepr clip the same way they'd punish the guy who steals the million bucks.

So: 30 tunes @ 89c = $26.70 and for this we spend millions to sue for $675K!?

What's wrong with this scenario?

30 songs @ .99 cents ea is much cheaper than 30 songs @ $ 22,500 ea. If he would have paid and not willfully broken the law, he would not have to file bankruptcy. Poor decision Mr. Tenenbaum

I would not kick so much if, what was left after legal fees of the $22,500 went to the artists, not the RIAA.

The RIAA keeps sending me Cease and Desist letters for illegally sharing their music. The only interaction I've _ever_ had with P2P networking is to download torrents of the software I've helped develop (like Linux versions, and Virtual Machines) and to upload photographs I've taken myself, with my copyright on them. Does this mean that they now have the right to give me the equivalent of a speeding ticket for doing the equivalent of driving near someone who was driving too fast?

At least, speeding tickets go to fund the people protecting us. The RIAA's fines? Go to their pockets, and bottom line, not to their artists, whom theoretically they are "protecting" by all this legal activity. In all the comments I've tracked, we don't even see the composers/performers of those 30 songs being involved in this case, at all. I wonder why? Shouldn't they, as the producers of what was stolen at least be mentioned, as involved? Do they care? Will they see any benefit?

Children, stealing is wrong, m'kay?
Stupid question: Has the RIAA actually prosecuted anyone who had not _distributed_ copyrighted material? It is still perfectly legal to copy music for personal use. The big deal is distributing it. When he shared those songs, how many people downloaded them? That's $1 of lost revenue for every download. The big $$ settlements are for distributing the material, not for downloading it. If you steal $26 worth of stuff from wal-mart, the penalty is up to 180 days in jail. Add to that the conspiracy-to-commit for everyone who downloaded from his sharing, and criminal charges in some states could carry a combined mandatory minimum of several years in jail. He got off easy.
Some people seem to think that because the RIAA is an association of large businesses that are profitable, it is OK to steal from them. Almost every one of you either works for (or runs) a profitable business (excepting government and non-prof employees, full time college students, and welfare bums, who are all supported by taxes paid by profitable businesses). If that business suffers losses due to theft, bottom line is affected, and the number of jobs the company can support decreases. In the long run, stealing of any kind, from any company, is threatening the livelihood of an individual that has rent to pay and mouths to feed. The CEOs won't take a pay cut - they will lay off blue collar workers to maintain profitability. For example, some guy with 3 kids and a mortgage working in the CD stamping factory for $8/ hr will be a victim of illegal file sharing, or that coder working for apple who loses his job because sales are down at the i-tunes store due to the 20k songs Tannebaum gave away, etc. Yes, some of the things RIAA has tried to do are draconian. But stealing is still stealing, and it's hurting real people like you and me, not just the rich guys.
Michael: I think the only generation more selfish and entitlement-hungry than ours, is that of our kids...