Court won't reduce student's music download fine

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Associated Press


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has refused to take up a Boston University student's constitutional challenge to a $675,000 penalty for illegally downloading 30 songs and sharing them on the Internet.

The high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Joel Tenenbaum, of Providence, R.I., who was successfully sued by the Recording Industry Association of America for illegally sharing music on peer-to-peer networks. In 2009, a jury ordered Tenenbaum to pay $675,000, or $22,500 for each song he illegally downloaded and shared.

A federal judge called that unconstitutionally excessive, but the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston reinstated the penalty at the request of Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Warner Brothers Records Inc. and other record labels represented by the RIAA.

The judge will have a new opportunity to look at the case and could again order the penalty reduced, using different legal reasoning.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Stephen Breyer did not participate in the high court's consideration of the case.

[Hal-9000]

did he draw income from the sharing of the songs?


no? then fuck right off

[Muddy]

That's a pretty stiff penalty..

[Arkady Renko]

did he draw income from the sharing of the songs?


no? then fuck right off

mostly besides the point. if you wreck someone's car you're liable for the damage no matter if you drew income from the accident.


That's a pretty stiff penalty..

yeah, seems wildly excessive to me. by rights the plaintiffs should have to prove how many times the files were downloaded or at least present a plausible estimate, so as to provide a scale to gauge the possible revenue they lost out on.

Recently, a german court came up with a pretty good idea on how to assess damages from illegal file sharing. They awarded twice the sum that the guy who uploaded a few dozen songs to bearshare would have owed for a nationwide radio broadcast for each day the files were available on bearshare. Seeing how you probably can't come up with an exact number of downloads anyway and there's no telling how many of the downloaders would have been willing to buy those files legally, it's a fair and handy approximation.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

yeah, seems wildly excessive to me. by rights the plaintiffs should have to prove how many times the files were downloaded or at least present a plausible estimate, so as to provide a scale to gauge the possible revenue they lost out on.

Recently, a german court came up with a pretty good idea on how to assess damages from illegal file sharing. They awarded twice the sum that the guy who uploaded a few dozen songs to bearshare would have owed for a nationwide radio broadcast for each day the files were available on bearshare. Seeing how you probably can't come up with an exact number of downloads anyway and there's no telling how many of the downloaders would have been willing to buy those files legally, it's a fair and handy approximation.

To me, that still sounds excessive. If the songs are sold online for 99 cents (US) online, then they should base the fine on that with how many downloads there were (estimated). I highly doubt each song was downloaded more than 22,000 times...in fact, I doubt each song was downloaded more than 1,000 times.

[FBD]

mostly besides the point. if you wreck someone's car you're liable for the damage no matter if you drew income from the accident.



yeah, seems wildly excessive to me. by rights the plaintiffs should have to prove how many times the files were downloaded or at least present a plausible estimate, so as to provide a scale to gauge the possible revenue they lost out on.

Recently, a german court came up with a pretty good idea on how to assess damages from illegal file sharing. They awarded twice the sum that the guy who uploaded a few dozen songs to bearshare would have owed for a nationwide radio broadcast for each day the files were available on bearshare. Seeing how you probably can't come up with an exact number of downloads anyway and there's no telling how many of the downloaders would have been willing to buy those files legally, it's a fair and handy approximation.

That sounds entirely reasonable - but wait, how much does that really cost? :lol:

Conversely, going by 99 cent downloads is a joke :lol:

[Arkady Renko]

That sounds entirely reasonable - but wait, how much does that really cost? :lol:

Conversely, going by 99 cent downloads is a joke :lol:

in that case the court awarded about 400 euros per song and per year. They also stated that if either side could prove a definite number of actual downloads, they would be inclined to award .13 Euros per download instead.

[Acid Trip]

They also stated that if either side could prove a definite number of actual downloads, they would be inclined to award .13 Euros per download instead.

If neither side can prove a definite number of downloads how did the prosescution prove it was downloaded at all?

[Arkady Renko]

it was a civil suit, the plaintiffs had to prove that the defendant was responsible for the upload in the first place, which they managed using one of these nifty tracking softwares. Damages are due in principle once the rights owners prove that their works are made available or download, but there's uncertainty under german law how to calculate them

[Hal-9000]

mostly besides the point. if you wreck someone's car you're liable for the damage no matter if you drew income from the accident.

How so? I think comparing the responsibility of vehicular damage to downloading a piece of an ether-file is besides the point counselor...:rolleyes:

[Arkady Renko]

How so? I think comparing the responsibility of vehicular damage to downloading a piece of an ether-file is besides the point counselor...:rolleyes:

Nope, whether you damage someone's material or intellectual property makes no matter - you're liable for the damage done, regardless if you benefited from it or not.