computerworld.com— Boston University student Joel Tenenbaum, found guilty last week of illegally downloading and distributing 30 copyrighted songs -- and fined $675,000 by a jury -- has a lot to say about his case.
Aug 7, 2009View in Crawl 4
And kids "threaten" the music industry by downloading copywritten mp3s, and they threaten to download more because of this ruling, so they're terrorists, too!
As stupid as his lawyer's tactics, apparently. Nesson hosed this case up from the beginning of his involvement - unless the real goal is to get the judgement declared unconstitutional in the appellate courts.
Really. If I slip and fall at a department store, I can't just sue the store for any amount I pull out of my ass. I have to show medical bills and account for lost wages, and maybe hope for a little extra for "pain and suffering". The point is, I have to show proof of damages. I think if the RIAA sues for damages, they should have to prove how many people actually downloaded the shared song who didn't subsequently buy the album. If that is technologically infeasible then too bad, they need to move on and use another strategy.
Be realistic - the one dollar price devolves from the economy of scales afforded by following the mechanism of paying for the merchandise at the store - online or whatever.Guy didn't go that route.Yeah, I agree that the suit amount is excessive but I don't buy the $1 per song theory in this case either.
Yeah, dude, you can make an effort to not illegally download songs. You can get off your couch and actually go buy them instead. Or go to concerts, buy the CDs from the band, whatever.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2009
And kids "threaten" the music industry by downloading copywritten mp3s, and they threaten to download more because of this ruling, so they're terrorists, too!
Closed AccountAug 9, 2009
Why do we continue to let this stupid s**t happen? This guys life is ruined because of money greedy bastards.
maz2331Aug 12, 2009
As stupid as his lawyer's tactics, apparently. Nesson hosed this case up from the beginning of his involvement - unless the real goal is to get the judgement declared unconstitutional in the appellate courts.
tnoyAug 22, 2009
If you don't share the music, you have nothing to worry about.
tnoyAug 22, 2009
Exactly. That is due to the fact his case was not about theft.
shadowspawnAug 22, 2009
OMGWTFROFLBBQ!
bylethAug 26, 2009
Really. If I slip and fall at a department store, I can't just sue the store for any amount I pull out of my ass. I have to show medical bills and account for lost wages, and maybe hope for a little extra for "pain and suffering". The point is, I have to show proof of damages. I think if the RIAA sues for damages, they should have to prove how many people actually downloaded the shared song who didn't subsequently buy the album. If that is technologically infeasible then too bad, they need to move on and use another strategy.
johnnysoftwareAug 27, 2009
Be realistic - the one dollar price devolves from the economy of scales afforded by following the mechanism of paying for the merchandise at the store - online or whatever.Guy didn't go that route.Yeah, I agree that the suit amount is excessive but I don't buy the $1 per song theory in this case either.
johnnysoftwareAug 27, 2009
Yeah, dude, you can make an effort to not illegally download songs. You can get off your couch and actually go buy them instead. Or go to concerts, buy the CDs from the band, whatever.
jtmonAug 27, 2009
Go bankrupt, take 7 years off from life, come back new!