Joel FOUGHT back
By Debbie Rosenbaum
Make no mistake: Joel fought back.
Together with a group of passionate, dedicated Harvard Law students and their professor, this lawsuit was about more than just money. It was also about the fact that Joel fought back on behalf of a generation that hasn’t been able to defend itself against the well-paid lawyers who have been hired to scare file-sharers … in order to (what we now know is to) “teach them a lesson.”
Undoubtedly, we were a creative and nontraditional legal team. But going into trial, we were stripped of all our attempts to mitigate Joel’s liability, so today’s outcome has been in the cards all week.
Many of us have put our lives and personal resources into this case over the last year because along with Joel, we wanted this issue to have its day in court — rather than flying under the radar via hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements between individuals and the music industry. And we are proud to have defended Joel for free.
When Joel refused to settle, he made the decision to stand his ground: what he did may have been technically against the law, but he knew — as we all do — that what he did is absolutely no different from what millions of people across the world did … and millions continue to do.
And so we know there is disappointment among the public about the outcome. Your letters of support have been pouring in over the last few months, and we’ve been inspired by your shared stories. Although we could not win this case, we are proud to have highlighted the abuses and the inefficiency with which the music industry burdens the court system.
Make no mistake, friends. Joel didn’t sell out.
When faced with the litigation machine orchestrated by the RIAA, Joel fought back. When subjected to more than 15 hours of depositions, Joel fought back. When his family was subpoenaed and his friends were called to testify against him, Joel fought back. When his character was assassinated, Joel fought back. When asked to settle for more than an amount he was able to afford, Joel fought back.
When the music industry spent an estimated $1M to prosecute just one of the millions of individuals who use file-sharing software, Joel fought back. The battle was lost, and the war is not over.
But make no mistake: JOEL FOUGHT BACK.
“When his character was assassinated, Joel fought back.”
Based upon the testimony at trial, it appears that the only one who truly assassinated Mr. Tenenbaum’s character was Mr. Tenenbaum himself.
For every Joel Tenenbaum I can point to another individual who chooses to follow the law instead of flout it. They do so because they understand it is the right thing to do. It is indeed disappointing that Mr. Tenenbaum chose a different path, as a consequence of which he has doubtless learned an important (and painful) lesson.
No, “Joel did [not] fight back” in the pursuit of a noble cause. He fought back in an apparently vain attempt to escape the consequences of his actions.
I disagree, MLS. What Joel’s case was about was simply this: corporate America trampling on the rights of individuals, and obviously this trend will continue until We The People have had enough. Joel’s case wasn’t about the morality of his actions, but it IS about the morality of CEO’s and corporations themselves . All these lawsuits are doing nothing whatsoever to stop downloading of music and they never will. What these lawsuits is truly about is greed, plain and simple. For some reason, we as a society are putting money ahead of everything, including the well being of our college students, their birthright to live as a free person in a democratic society. Corporations that are profit driven are the antithesis of democracy and the laws in this country reflect the whims and desires of the powerful. That is the real truth.
If you think there was something wrong with what Joel did, you think there’s something wrong with public libraries. When all publications are electroinc, you will have to chose between freedom and restrictions on sharing. If you chose restrictions, as the industry demands, you will not be able to share your books, articles, music and movies. In fact, devices like the Kindle and iPhone show you won’t be able to share your own works in a meaningful way either. We should all chose freedom or will will all be subject to ruin as Joel is. Copyright is supposed to be about encouraging publication to enlarge the public domain, it’s not supposed to give two or three companies enslave us.
Good luck Joel. I hope the jury awards the plaintifs a grand sum of ten cents for their efforts. That would teach the world a lesson that’s right.
Social norms enabled by technology will eventually cause the legal code, that was designed for a world without the Internet, to change. When everyone shares files, nobody will be left to prosecute or judge. While we are waiting for the legal system to catch up with reality it is unfortunate that individuals like Joel are made to pay the brunt of the damages (however much they may turn out to be).
Good lawyers counsel their clients to settle when they did it and the other side gives a reasonable offer. Hope the team lived up to its obligations to Joel. If Joel wanted to fight the law, then he needs to be prepared to take responsibility (before trial), take the punishment, and then fight on appeal.
Joel fought back by lying in responses to discovery early on–essentially perjuring himself at the instructions of his mother.
Joel fought back by making the plaintiffs waste a lot of money that probably could have been used to better purposes– maybe they would have used it for something better, maybe they wouldn’t have, but we’ll never know because joel forced them to flush it down a legal toilet.
If they spent a million dollars, I guess there’s a possibility that even if the jury awards very little, gertner can award a portion of plaintiff’s fees against joel. And it will still bankrupt him. And at that point, if I were him, I’d sue my attorneys and pretend attorneys.
To recast “fighting back” as some sort of moral victory is a pretty pathetic and transparent attempt at rationalization to soothe what should be a pretty guilty conscience on the part of the folks who convinced this poor patsy to take a fall like this.
This is a war of attrition, and wars of attrition can not be won unless some early frontline-soldiers fight and die. Thanks for fighting.
They probably won’t know your name, but all those kids who will be listening for free to 2030’s version of Coldplay will be thanking the unknown entities that went before them in the fight.
Hey MCH… how is this a case of “corporate America trampling on the rights of individuals”?
I suppose if you got caught shoplifting from Best Buy and they pressed charges you would classify that as “corporate America trampling on the rights of individuals” too?
You are a deluded individual if you think that.
Joel broke the law, plain and simple. He’s not a hero. Period. End of story.
I wonder how many of the righteous people commenting on here have downloaded music themselves. I also wonder how many of them are cutting a cheque from one of the companies involved in this suit.
Take the high and mighty BS over to Fox or something. It’s not welcome here.
Joel, thanks.
What he did may have been against the law, but what’s at issue here is whether the statutory damages are reasonable or indeed constitutional. Is it realistic to determine that his making these songs available means that the record companies’ profits were reduced by the number of downloads times 99 cents or whatever, plus an extra margin for good measure and deterrence? Is it fair to make him compensate for *all* of the supposed losses when he only shared files without intent to make any profit, instead of asking those who downloaded the files, and actually benefited, to pay?
No, laws against copyright infringement have become exceedingly harsh and penalties disproportionate. It’s clear that the industry want’s absolute obedience, not fair legislatino. They always talk about their “losses”, but how come noone talks about the deadweight losses copyright, like other monopolies, causes?
And likening unauthorized copying of information to theft of physical goods is never relevant to any extent whatsoever. Just don’t go there. In Sweden, a lot of people have understood the difference and why it matters, but a few stubborn types refuse to see it.
I’ve been really interested in this case, I am completely against poor Joel being sued for $4.5m - what a ridiculous sum - the punishment doesn’t fit the crime at all. This is also a massive PR disaster for the music industry - don’t forget about that.
But, really, this such a horribly written article.
When you take the stand and admit guilt don’t be surprised when you have to “face the music”. If your cause is so nobel then that’s fine, most people will just see you as a spoiled gen Y kid with an entitlement complex who didn’t want to pay for the media that you enjoy.
Just because something is easy does make it legal. Just because you want something does not make it your right to take. He could have had DRM free tracks with an order from Amazon or the local music store.
As for damages, you people are delusional if you believe that the courts will find any relief for Joel or others. Statutory damaged can not be confused for punitive damages where there is a loose, but low constitutional guideline. For the courts to strike down the award they would have to find that congress did not have a legitimate purpose to set them as they did. If you really think the courts will find the statutory damages unconstitutional I have a bridge to sell you.
He will not win on appeal. Others who follow him will fail as well.
I’m not saying that the RIAA campaign is correct, or does not have holes, but Joel is not saying he was misidentified by flawed software or spoofing.
I have to agree with Nat wholeheartedly on this one. I’m with Joel all the way, but this article does him no favours whatsoever.
“apparently vain attempt to escape the consequences of his actions.” …you use the term “consequences of his actions” so neutrally, as if they were self-evident or handed down on tablets. that’s exactly the problem.
anyone in his right mind can see that copyright was never intended to sue someone for $150,000 per song for 30 songs on the internet- not when basically everyone, everywhere has been “guilty” of this “infringement.” this is madness. it reminds me of singapore’s “solution’ to vandalism- just beat a child half to death, and that will fix the problem of youth being rebellious.
this is not the america i was brought up to believe in. it’s a dictatorship with elected figures, and so many people want more control, not more freedom. they cheer these injustices- and i cannot relate to them or understand what could make them so jaded, so vengeful, so unfair- as if that unfairness were obvious and self-explanatory.
as if this is just how things are supposed to be. absolute madness. (oh sorry absolut vodka, do i have to pay you for using a word that is too similar to your trademark? or perhaps for “stealing” your ad slogan?)
Hey Leo! The scenario in Best Buy you describe would be stealing, I do not see sharing something I bought as stealing. I think that’s the main place where we disagree. If Joel broke the “law,” which is nothing more than manufactured control mechanisms by those running corporations and those who want to control other people’s bodies, then about 50 million more people also broke the law. If everyone does it, and it’s not hurting anyone, it’s fine to do it. I don’t see this whole thing as a problem, the music industry does because it’s losing money. Dying entities do desperate things, hence these trials. In any case, I salute your worth as a person! You need not debase yourself with name calling & being cruel to others you don’t know personally. It will all be OK! Much love.
Hey MCH!
Much love to you too.
I didn’t mean to call you names. When I said you were “delusional” I didn’t mean it to sound harsh. Sometimes messages get distorted on email & computers. What I meant was: the law is the law and a person cannot get around the law. If you think the law is unfair, change it, go ahead.
For example, let’s say a policeman pulls you over on the motorway and gives you a ticket for speeding. And you decide you have every right to speed and the policeman has no right to tell you how fast or slow you can go, so you decide to just not pay the ticket. Well, let’s say they then suspend your license and throw you in jail. For you to say “Hey, its not fair to put me in jail!!” that’s delusional, because the law is the law. You gotta follow the law,,, that’s it. period.
If you want to change the law… go ahead… but until it gets changed, you just have to live with it… and if you think you don’t… that’s “delusional”
Ok I think I made my point. No disrespect to you personally. I am sure you are a nice person, though slightly anarchy-driven…..
Peace to you!
Hey MCH,
But Joel didn’t buy the music he shared. If he did, he might have had a “fair use” defense. What he did is exactly the same as shoplifting, except the shop was at his digital fingertips.
Congratulations on the legal team for standing up against a law which is ridiculous and unfair.
The music industry as it’s been formulated is dying. For decades, they’ve screwed bands out of royalties, shops out of profits and us, the customers, out of a fair deal. Now, because they wanted to make even more profit by switching to a more convenient (and easily piratable) format, CDs, we’ve been given the opportunity to fight back. Records shops are closing all over the world, record company profits are falling and soon, it will all be over.
Manufactured pop stars will have their 15 minutes, great bands will make money from playing live, fans will be able to donate money to bands for recordings made freely available online, and peace will reign again.
This isn’t about the musicians and never was. It’s about their multi-million-dollar record companies.
In Victorian Britain, it wasn’t unusual for a jury to decide a token punishment based on viewing the crime as a lesser offence because even though the law had been broken, the assinine and punative penalties were grossly disproportionate to the crime committed.
I hope this jury has a similar view of the issue of proportionate penalties for breaking the copyright laws Joel. I admire your courage in attempting to fight. Sadly a court of law will rarely turn round and declare the ‘law is a ass’. I hope you’ve got human beings who have a sense of proportion in that jury.
Thoughts are with you in this difficult time.
It seems to me the record companies are beating the crap out of ‘freetards” that also download music illegaly!
tough break nigga
the RIAA doesnt deserve 4.5M by a loong shot
I don’t follow why Joel would collapse and plead guilty to everything. Unless, as it has been suggested, this is just part one of some attempt to get a ridiculous settle awarded against him, and that is what the “fight” will be about later. However, the article doesn’t even hint at this, and instead spends time trying to convince us that Joel pleading guilty to everything is a “victory”. If he lied in his deposition, and then decided to a) admit that, and b) plead guilty, why are these people wasting their time defending him, and waste time with having this website? Why don’t we wait for that case where the defendant pleads innocent, and the legal team mounts a stirring uphill defense against injustice? Color me confused.
“Thoughts are with you in this difficult time.”
Indeed. I’m thinking that anyone who breaks the law so repeatedly, ignores official and familial advice to stop, lies about it under oath and eventually lays blame to his own sisters has an interesting response from the jury coming. This couldn’t be happening to a nicer guy.
@Douglas, that’s what ‘freetards’ do!
Joel paid a lot of arrogant lipservice by playing to his pirate fans, then folded like a paper umbrella in the rain when the going got real. The Pirate Bay boys, anyone?
Joel,
Your lawyers are idiots. You’ve wasted everyone’s time. And what is the freakin’ point of all this? Oh, and you are an idiot too. Did you do all these illegal things Joel? a: “yes”
Hahahahaha
@Cobra, typical ‘freetard’ response. Please grow up!
Well, we’ve finally drilled down to the truth after almost a decade of obfuscation and dissemination.
Did the p2p poster boy act because of the record cos. failure to adapt to the digital market place? No. Because the RIAA are greedy corporate pigs? No. Because the major’s music sucks? Not that either.
In JT’s words;
“It was great… It was like this giant library in front of you with all sorts of songs… It’s all up there… It’s like the Google of music… You have this list of songs, and you can get them really easily.”
Some will no doubt continue to confer nobility upon p2p’rs and blame upon the music industry. The hypocrisy could not have been more perfectly exposed.
Have a nice weekend.
are they meaning the minimum amount (30*750=22500) or are they meaning 22500*30 = 675000?
[...] Tenenbaum’s defense team, headed by Harvard Professor Charles Nesson and his law students, were left powerless. “Undoubtedly, we were a creative and nontraditional legal team. But going into trial, we were stripped of all our attempts to mitigate Joel’s liability, so today’s outcome has been in the cards all week,” student Debbie Rosenbaum wrote. [...]
[...] Tenenbaum’s defense team, headed by Harvard Professor Charles Nesson and his law students, were left powerless. “Undoubtedly, we were a creative and nontraditional legal team. But going into trial, we were stripped of all our attempts to mitigate Joel’s liability, so today’s outcome has been in the cards all week,” student Debbie Rosenbaum wrote. [...]
As an HLS grad, I think an important lesson about the law was taught today: Law matters. Go into court with frivolous theories and you will lose — lose because the law matters. We can debate whether the existing law is wise. But as lawyers committed to the rule of law, we should appreciate the fact that what happened this week was the law being followed.
Good fight, Joel.
The library analogy from “Twitter” is completely off base.
You’re renting a book for free when you check one out. And if you’re late with it what happens? You get fined. If you never bring it back then your card and priveleges are revoked.
All of my compositions are licensed to the libraries of this country through my performing rights society (ASCAP). Why? Because they asked if it was ok to do so and I said yes. Mr. Tenenbaum only had to ask in the first place and would have been told no. He knew that when he made available music to which he had no ‘license’ to do so.
Let me put it this way: if your neighbor came in your house and unplugged your TV and started to walk out with it would you a) ask for a new “neighborhood model”?, or b) grab a baseball bat and tell him/her to put the TV down?
Consider that all of this could have been avoided by Mr. Tenenbaum spending $30 on DRM free music and sending it to select friends to turn them on to it. Is that asking too much?
J Fred in Nashville
No wonder Harvard is in trouble. How can a group of lawyers admit to breaking the law and feel good about it? He broke the law and as you say, he did so knowing he was breaking the law. SO GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE WHO OWN THE IP!!! If you cannot protect your IP then we can do away with lawyers all together.
“Creative and nontraditional legal team”?
How about a harebrained and incompetent legal team? Nesson should be disbarred for contempt and gross malpractice at every turn in this trial. His behavior was not even on par with that of a 1L in mock trial at an unaccredited diploma mill. That he lost badly was no surprise to anyone.
[...] Tenenbaum’s defense team, headed by Harvard Professor Charles Nesson and his law students, were left powerless. “Undoubtedly, we were a creative and nontraditional legal team. But going into trial, we were stripped of all our attempts to mitigate Joel’s liability, so today’s outcome has been in the cards all week,” student Debbie Rosenbaum wrote. [...]
If the RIAA were so concerned about their IP, they’d create a technology to securely transmit songs digitally, with proper keys and ciphers only the end-user can unlock.
They wanted to use an internet they didn’t invent, a digital format they didn’t invent, to make more money. And they got burned by not securing such valuable property, 150K per song. LOL. What a farce.
And yes, Joel did break the “law”, but that’s why the Harvard lawyers took the case… to get it publicity so the laws are looked at a bit closer, and changed if need be.
If I drop a $100 bill on the sidewalk I’m not going to prosecute the guy who picks it up.
It’s my fault for not being careful enough.
Piracy is big because prices are too high. It’s a natural reaction to the marketplace.
Heck, half the founding fathers were bootleggers.
By the way, maybe Nesson should have told Tenenbaum that he can’t discharge a judgement for willful copyright infringement in bankruptcy, so he should stop squawking about how it will force him into bankruptcy, cause he’ll still owe the labels $675,000 until it is paid off.
Thank you jury for such an excellent precedent!
[...] Tenenbaum’s defense team, headed by Harvard Professor Charles Nesson and his law students, were left powerless. “Undoubtedly, we were a creative and nontraditional legal team. But going into trial, we were stripped of all our attempts to mitigate Joel’s liability, so today’s outcome has been in the cards all week,” student Debbie Rosenbaum wrote. [...]
The music industry, artists, and the entertainment industry in general makes way too much money in the first place.
@f*cktheriaa.org , what a lack of glamour, just like all ‘freetards’!
Jail if full of skewed logic and justification for taking whatever they want from whomever they want. All criminals justify their actions either before they commit a crime or just after. The great logic here is “It’s okay because everyone else does it.” No matter that it is illegal and stealing from those that created the music. What is worse is a group of law students and a professor that carry that same skewed justification into our legal system. Great name “Harvard”. This university should be ashamed that its name is associated with a professor that leads such an unfair cause.
A lot of things were illegal in the past that aren’t now. Laws can change, particularly when the public wills it. There are hundreds of millions of file sharers exchanging content even now as I type this. The concepts of theft and copyright that have been flouted by the numerous, and likely planted, individuals on this page do not hold up in the digital age. Nothing was lost or taken, only shared. This is in no way comparable to shoplifting a retail store, and neither was the grossly overinflated penalty. Joel is only one of many, many millions. The cartel that is the RIAA/MPAA and everyone attached to them cannot continue, and it will not. The law of the future will take effect at some point. It is unfortunate that it cannot take effect sooner. Thank you for fighting, Joel, and please do not get discouraged.
I will never pay another penny for music. I will listen to what I have or listen to the radio Fuck the RIAA and the bullshit laws that tax the public for something that is free by nature (music)
So here is what I don’t get, maybe some of the Harvard Law students can help me here. Back in the 80’s we all “taped” our favorite songs on cassette tapes from the radio. We would then trade those tapes with friends. How come the RIAA couldn’t go after that practice, and how is this effectively different. From a technology standpoint it is perfectly identical except for the difference between analog copies vs. digital copies. Granted the ability to copy digital media is easier, but how come I didn’t have to pay $675,000 for the mix tape I gave to my girl friend in 1994?
[...] Tenenbaum’s defense team, headed by Harvard Professor Charles Nesson and his law students, were left powerless. “Undoubtedly, we were a creative and nontraditional legal team. But going into trial, we were stripped of all our attempts to mitigate Joel’s liability, so today’s outcome has been in the cards all week,” student Debbie Rosenbaum wrote. [...]
[...] Tenenbaum’s defense team, headed by Harvard Professor Charles Nesson and his law students, were left powerless. “Undoubtedly, we were a creative and nontraditional legal team. But going into trial, we were stripped of all our attempts to mitigate Joel’s liability, so today’s outcome has been in the cards all week,” student Debbie Rosenbaum wrote. [...]
Thou shall NOT STEAL…
In the land of the morally and ethically BANKRUPT, this fine of 700K was about right!
What part of doing the wrong thing didn’t Joel understand?
I hope they send you to “pound me in the ass prison” Joel, you goddamn criminal scum.
Greg M -
“Back in the 80’s we all “taped” our favorite songs on cassette tapes from the radio. We would then trade those tapes with friends. How come the RIAA couldn’t go after that practice, and how is this effectively different. From a technology standpoint it is perfectly identical…”
Except it’s nothing of the sort. In the 1980s, each subsequent copy you made noticably degraded the sound quality. Moreover, there was a finite, small limit to the number of copies you could make or the number of people with whom you could share it.
The glaring difference today is the ease with which perfect digital duplicates can be made and offered to millions upon millions of people - copies that completely supplant the need for the paid original.
Such actions go against the very foundation of copyright law, and would be considered as infringing in the 1500s, when copyright law was first conceived, as it is today. There has never, nor will there ever be, an entitlement to the work of others for free without their say so.
You deserve everything you get. Intellectual property is property. You stole it. You stole the hard work of someone else because you have an entitlement attitude. You could of just paid for it or do ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING ELSE, but download them.
The radio is free the last time I checked.
You got everything you deserved.
In case of Nirvana the commercial rights are own by someone who told the singer to commit suicide.
In case of the other right owners, compare this to the copyright issue in the scientific community. Scientific knowledge is lost to copyright owners who ask high fees for access to this knowledge.
These are obsolete copyright laws that hamper scientific development.
My sympathies.
Why is Joel guilty, but youtube illegally hosts hundreds of music videos for millions to watch and record. All it takes is simple software already in most computers to record the audio portion. Bam! Free music!!!! But the record companies somehow believe that is alright. To them it makes more sense to sue a broke college student who won’t be able to pay the fine anyway. No wonder the record companies are struggling. They are run by morons!
This punish is insane, law is wrong. Period. No moral lesson, but out of proportion,Mainwhile real and serious crimes left without punish, or there is not “exemplary” punish for real criminals. The justice you show us stinks. And people who approve this insanity stinks too.
My sympathies,
The recording industry needs to stop insisting they live on a time 20 years ago and forcing people to think the same too. They can’t fight technology, and they surely will never be able to stop the internet. Whether everyone likes it or not, let’s face it, technology has changed our way of living, drastically. We’ve come a long way. It’s high time they start figuring out how to embrace the technology instead of refusing it.
Thank you for fighting back Joel. You’re right, this is not the end of the war, but one can hope that someday the industry would come to their senses.
From cpt kangarooski of slashdot:
I am not a litigator, so I really never go to court. It being a novelty to me, I had a fun time watching the trial this week, and seeing how an infringement trial goes outside of what I’ve read in books. However, I noticed what I thought was a significant mistake in the jury instructions as the judge and the two sides were working them out today. I predicted that this could cause the jury to err in a particular way, and looking at the award, I think it may have actually happened.
The plaintiff suggested that the jury should award damages based on the number of infringements. The judge felt that this was acceptable, and the defense did not counter with an alternative. When the instructions were finally given to the jury, they included language to this effect. The problem with this is that the law — 17 USC 504(c)(1) — specifies that statutory damages are awarded per work infringed, not per infringement. That is to say, if you were on trial for distributing one copyrighted sound recording to one million people, that would only count against you one time, not one million times. But if you were on trial for distributing two different sound recordings once each, that would be two counts against you.
I feared that due to the flawed language in the instructions the jury might believe that even if they were to award the minimum of $750 per count (in this case there are 30 counts), they might take notice of the fact that the defendant infringed when he downloaded, and infringed again when he uploaded, and therefore might double their award, thinking that each type of infringement counted separately for computing damages. Or worse, they might multiply their figure more, if they thought he uploaded a lot.
Well, the figure that they came up with after deliberating was $675,000. The minimum award in this case would have been $750 per work times 30 works, or $22,500. Multiply $22,500 by 30, and you get the amount actually awarded. It is possible that the jury meant to award the minimum damages, but due to the incorrect instructions, multiplied to account for multiple acts of uploading that they believed occurred.
Or they might have just felt that 30 times the minimum was a just figure, and they understood the instructions just fine. Not having seen reports (if there are any, or are ever going to be any) from the jurors as to what their logic was when deliberating, I don’t know.
But the doubt, it seems to me, could be grounds for a mistrial. This is of course entirely unrelated to the constitutionality issue that has been discussed at length. On both issues, I will be very interested to see what happens. And since an appeal is likely, and any appeal will go to the First Circuit, I will probably get to see that myself as well.
I think they should have condemned Joel to the death penalty. He gets away too easily. I mean he stole at least 30$ worth of merchandise. That’s a terrible offense. Nearly as terrible as riding the bus without a ticket.
So remember kids, if you steal a car and threaten the passenger with a gun, make sure you eject the CDs in the player and leave them on site. Because that’s what really matter, at least as long as laws are made by politicians who get money from the RIAA.
Some people say that he is no better than a shoplifter, but I really don’t care. It’s the hypocrisy and bullying that bother me. As far as I’m concerned, the RIAA can go straight to hell.
[...] Tenenbaum’s defense team, headed by Harvard Professor Charles Nesson and his law students, were left powerless. “Undoubtedly, we were a creative and nontraditional legal team. But going into trial, we were stripped of all our attempts to mitigate Joel’s liability, so today’s outcome has been in the cards all week,” student Debbie Rosenbaum wrote. [...]
The RIAA have zero respect for the law!
Oh, wait.
[...] Tenenbaum’s defense team, headed by Harvard Professor Charles Nesson and his law students, were left powerless. “Undoubtedly, we were a creative and nontraditional legal team. But going into trial, we were stripped of all our attempts to mitigate Joel’s liability, so today’s outcome has been in the cards all week,” student Debbie Rosenbaum wrote. [...]
@Xeb - thanks for that explanation. Gives me hope that the jury were trying to be proportionate and that we may see an end to these stupidly punitive damages being awarded if your explanation does prove to be what happened.
[...] Tenenbaum’s defense team, headed by Harvard Professor Charles Nesson and his law students, were left powerless. “Undoubtedly, we were a creative and nontraditional legal team. But going into trial, we were stripped of all our attempts to mitigate Joel’s liability, so today’s outcome has been in the cards all week,” student Debbie Rosenbaum wrote. [...]
I’ve first-hand witnessed the bloodshed committed by people who’d rather do just about anything, or go to any extent, than pay a dollar or less for a song they like. They’ll spend thousands of dollars on computer equipment, hundreds on shoes, thousands on other clothing, and I guess they’ll buy beer or whatever else it is that they want. But they’ll set up websites, get a whole lawschool going, and then tell people that the record companies are “demons” and so-on.
How much is too much for a song? 5 cents? 25 cents? 99 cents? How about one cent?
Some people would rather pay for this lawsuit or this guy’s legal damages than pay a nickel for a song they like. Some other people take other people’s artwork from MySpace, and put their name on it. They might even put their name on other people’s songs too.
As to fiction writing, that isn’t so big a problem as others make out of it. But even so, this isn’t anything to brag about. The record companies might be going after individuals in a hardcore, vicious way.
But it still doesn’t make getting somebody’s hard-earned work for free, and then bragging about it, anything to be proud of.
Go ahead, give this guy money for the lawsuit. It will really make your favorite band happy to know you are supporting “freedom.” It’s just hard for them to keep making albums when they have to wait tables or work 40 hours a week doing something else, so you can enjoy it for free.
If you’ll buy an iPod instead of stealing it, then you can pay for the music you use on it.
There is no denying that Joel broke the law and by rights should accept some kind of punishment, but surely to God there has to be a sense of proportion here. Maybe a fine of a few thousand dollars would be a fair amount. This case demonstrates how far societies priorities are out of line when someone who is caught speeding, which endangers lives is given a small fine, yet a minor misdemeanour which is no worse than shoplifting is punished so heavily.
Gerard -
“In case of the other right owners, compare this to the copyright issue in the scientific community. Scientific knowledge is lost to copyright owners who ask high fees for access to this knowledge.”
Instead of offering completely unfounded, and untrue, suppositions like this, perhaps you’d like to give us an example of how copyright law has results in fees for access to scientific knowledge?
This fine will get reduced to 120$ by the Supreme Court(excessive damages in the Constiution),Joel will file then for Bankruptcy for the legal fees and the RIAA will look like the biggest TWATS ever!
Think i´m joking?
WATCH THIS SPACE!
That is what Joel Tenebaum and Prof. Neeson want..
Neeson NEEDED this judgement…
The battle has been lost but the war is not over!
@Ervin Raab
There was nothing in the Bibel about “thou shau not COPY”
Thats what file-sharing is COPYING music and not stealing it-Stealing is when the physical CD was taken-A file ist not stolen its COPIED!
Please check the FACTS!
Forgot to say in Europe your legal system is the LAUGHING stock in the whole world-Won´t never happen in Europe or even Canada!
Pirate Bay-ALL Files 3,9 Million $
Jammie Thomas 24 Songs(24$) 1,92 MILLION $
Joel Tenebaum 30 Songs (30$) 675,000$
All the Bankers in America 100,000,000,000(or more)$ NO PUNISHMENT!
To JM
“thou shalt not copy.”
Maybe not in the Bible but it’s in the constitution, art, 1, sec 8.
It’s called a “copy right,” the right to copy belongs exclusively to the author or inventor.
Tough concept to grasp I know.
Maybe now Joel understands it a little better.
JM– Probably not. Nesson & company’s inability to put forth a coherent defense has likely so botched up his ability to sustain a successful appeal such that, although Judge Gertner could very well try to reduce it, it likely will get reinstated on appeal. Jury verdicts are notoriously hard to get set aside. And the plaintiffs likely will fight a bankruptcy as well given the wilfulness issue. If the plan was to simply take a dive and set up an appeal to tee up the Constitutional issue, it sure could have been done more artfully.
The distribution of digital media costs nothing.
Musicians/Artists should be rewarded on a voluntary/charity based scheme
Well a good thing this isn’t hedonistic Euro-land, isn’t it.
In America, if I want to think up something and then tell people all about it, I have the freedom to make them pay me for it everytime they want to think about it. I mean, what about this don’t you people understand? Joel deserves this and more for trying to steal the thoughts of other people, people who worked (thought about stuff) really hard to think up thoughts that they could sell.
I’m not entirely sure where morals come from, but they probably come from people, and each of us people get to vote in democratic America. So that means that all of our votes must have our morals in them, and since our votes sort of make up laws in some way (I think that’s how it works), that means the laws represent morals. By breaking the law by stealing thoughts, Joel did something very wrong and deserves whatever the law (morals) says he deserves.
I can’t wait until the internet is more secure, so that real freedom can truly exist. I can’t wait until all internet thoughts that are shared between people are monitored to make sure that the parties involved have proper licenses for those thoughts. Until then, the internet will be a cesspool of stolen thoughts that will prevent freedom and morals.
Bless America & Freedom!
The distribution of digital media costs nothing.
Musicians/Artists should be rewarded on a voluntary/charity based scheme.
Well, Ian-maybe your employer should decide ‘voluntarily’ whether or not to ‘reward’ /pay you when you come in and work. How on earth could you make that asinine statement with a straight face.
The fact that it is ‘easy’ to steal music and that ‘everyone’ is doing it does not make it any less illegal or harmful to the creators. May be the damages that were awarded were excessive-maybe not. But I can tell you one thing. Joel, and his team of Harvard lawyers are idiots and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded.
I have yet to read any logical, coherent defense of Joel’s actions (because there is none to be found), just a lot of nonsensical ranting about the music industry.
[...] Tenenbaum’s defense team, headed by Harvard Professor Charles Nesson and his law students, were left powerless. “Undoubtedly, we were a creative and nontraditional legal team. But going into trial, we were stripped of all our attempts to mitigate Joel’s liability, so today’s outcome has been in the cards all week,” student Debbie Rosenbaum wrote. [...]
[...] Tenenbaum’s defense team, headed by Harvard Professor Charles Nesson and his law students, were left powerless. “Undoubtedly, we were a creative and nontraditional legal team. But going into trial, we were stripped of all our attempts to mitigate Joel’s liability, so today’s outcome has been in the cards all week,” student Debbie Rosenbaum wrote. [...]
TO lawyer:
First: Television is funded through advertisements. There are a lot businesses which work as services providers (maybe you know Google?)
Second: In my country, there is something called Proportionality of the Law. This means that each crime deserve a proportional punishment. So if I stole a Porsche or a Ferrari (without violence and with the keys on it) the fine I would have to pay has to be bigger that the one I pay just for 30 songs.
Third: There are things which were illegal and now there are not. For example some drugs ( alcohol ), rights to certain groups of people, etc. Why cannot someone fight to show what he/she believe is right? why is that so stupid for you?
I will continue downloading music, though maybe it is not needed anymore because some people clever than you invented something called SPOTIFY.
4th: There are other countries were sharing music is not illegal when it is for non-commercial purposes. So it is not so stupid to defend this.
5th: Everyone deserve to be pay for his work, but if the business’s scheme is not working, why they can use the law to make money??
@facebone
You know in every other country in the whole wide world a judgement on this scale is NEVER possible.
You also know in common law(which the british and american system is based) is the old phrase “The punishment must fit the crime” more than relevant.
-Which in this case it isn´t.
@Bob
Copyright law was designed to protect the artists and not to bemisused to ruin filshares!
Look at the american justice system.
1.It seems to be ok to ruin people for 30 songs but if you are taken half way across the world,be tortured, denied every right in American Law(Habeas Copus) and then when you get released to your home country you CAN`T sue the american govt because its SECRET!_Brilliant justice there!
In the UK you CAN sue the govt. EVEN if its secret…
2. American always wants other countries to do WHAT IT WANTS-But if an american breaks the law e.g in germany-No he can´t be tried-(Like do what we do not what we say!)
3.I´m not an expert on american law but in YOUR constitution there is a provison
for excessive punishment-So alone because of the 675,000$ penalty IT IS EXCESSIVE!
4.Neeson wanted to win on fair use-That was thrown out and plan B is probably to take it to the Supreme Court!
5.Remember the EXXON oil desater in Alsaka in 1989-Exxon appealed almost 17 years befor 1$ was paid Basically about excessive damages-In principle joel could appeal until the dictor comes and WILL NEVER pay 1$…
I’m sorry, but these damages were self-inflicted by Mr. Tenenbaum.
He lied under oath to the court for eight full months, before coming clean on the witness stand. Instead of appearing to be a sympathetic defendant facing a large and greedy organization, he looked like a lying sociopath who committed perjury, a federal felony, without hesitation for over half a year, playing the entire court and his legal team for chumps, because it seemed like a good idea at the time.
Judges and juries don’t like being lied to. I’d be pretty willing to put money on the punitive size of the damages being because of the perjury when it comes down to it. Considering that perjury carries a jail sentence of up to five years, Tenenbaum should consider himself lucky he’s not facing prison right now.
He didn´t LIE in court!
He lied to the RIAA and thats something else…
He lied TO the court in sworn statements and depositions. That’s still perjury.
The music these artists make comes from their vary soul and it’s truly priceless, 675k is nothing, I myself spend about 6000 a year on CDs and iTunes. I really hope they give him the death penalty, the world would be a better place without people who share music.
1. If the jury suspects it was intentionally lied to, it doesn’t have the right to exact its own revenge. Another case should be made to determine perjury.
2. “Well, Ian-maybe your employer should decide ‘voluntarily’ whether or not to ‘reward’ /pay you when you come in and work. How on earth could you make that asinine statement with a straight face.”
Haha, employers DO ‘voluntarily’ pay you for your work. If they’re not happy with your work, they can fire you and hire someone else (or replace you with a machine), or cut your pay. If they don’t want to pay min wage, they can move to China. If Ian isn’t happy with his payment, he can switch employers. Or if Ian’s job is supplanted by machines, he can switch careers. You know what Ian won’t do? Sue his customer base for millions.
Being an “artist” is not a wise career choice. Would you train yourself to till dirt with a fork, and then demand that farmers pay you since you work really hard to do something they like to see done? No, because they can just pay once for a machine to do it. Sure, the machine didn’t invent the conecept of tilling, but its a heck of a lot cheaper and better than a really hard working guy with a fork.
So why does an artist deserve money for what a machine can do better? Once the music is created, the artist is instantly obsolete. Who in their right minds would enter a field where this happens? Now the machine CAN’T do live performances, so maybe artists should stick to those.
Couple the volatility of the job with the fact that there are tons and tons of bands out there, and only a select few get to make any real money. And these few aren’t even really picked by the public, they’re created by the record labels. So why, again, do the artists and the RIAA deserve money for what a machine can do better?
What would be so bad about a world where music is shared freely amongst the people? Some of you make it out to be living hell. Really, if the RIAA was gone, and the pay for digital music model disappeared, would the world stop turning? Would the local bands stop creating music?
Nope, the local bands would still be employed for live performances. The RIAA is not the incentive to create music - music has been around way before them, and way before copyright law. And it will be around long after the RIAA and copyright law, too.
But I do bet we would see the end of the generic hip-hop and pop formula, and a return to the meritocracy of old.
I’d like to close by saying the RIAA profit off of the ideas of others.
@Steve Michaels
Thank GOD i live in Europe!
Death Penalty-What a JOKE!
Buts its OK for George BUSH+his Neo-Cons to illegally kill 10,000s of Iraqis for OIl and NEVER be taken to court!
Even for murder you get less!
MLS, you take the freedom as granted. That’s why you don’t value it. Consider going to DPRK or China. Upon arrival you will tell us your opinion about freedom and such destructive organizations like RIAA…
Dumb Guy -
“Being an “artist” is not a wise career choice.”
That doesn’t give you the right to consume the fruits of their hard work for free merely because it’s your personal opinion that they shouldn’t be in their line of work.
While on the subject of payment, you woefully misinterpret the employer/employee analogy. Just as you wouldn’t continue to work for free for an employer who decided that your work wasn’t worth anything, so too should you not expect artists to continue putting their full efforts behind creating new works without the expectation of compensation.
I find it hilarious that you think artists will continue to tour and sell merchandise to makeup for the lost revenue from the illicit, free consumption of their work. If people like you complain over 1 dollar tracks and 15 dollar cds as being too expensive, what will you do when a tickets begin at 200 dollars per show and merchandise is 75 dollars for a t-shirt? Because that’s the only way they’ll be able to provide for the tour infrastructure and logistics and still make a profit without the financial backing of a recording industry employer.
“music has been around way before them, and way before copyright law”
And before copyright law, music was generally subject to patronage. And most patrons fiercly controlled the release of the works to the public. If you are to derive any lesson from history, it’s that artists’ works have never been free for the taking, nor will they ever be.
“I’d like to close by saying the RIAA profit off of the ideas of others.”
I’d like to close by saying that your name is very apropos. Given that every business in existence profits off the ideas of others, your point is what exactly?
“Given that every business in existence profits off the ideas of others, your point is what exactly?”
I actually meant to write more for that last sentence but I forgot and hit submit. I meant to say that people are always saying “do stuff for the artist”, when the RIAA is suing us for the same thing thing they are doing - using other’s ideas (not that I think people can own ideas, but w/e).
I’m so dumb, amirite? But let my small brain argue with you anyway, Ben, who is so smart to have this all figured out.
“so too should you not expect artists to continue putting their full efforts behind creating new works without the expectation of compensation.”
I already covered this implicitly, smart man. I said that artists will continue to make music without the currently lawful digital distribution model, and I further claim that they will put in just as much effort without the RIAA. Some artists are actually passionate about music, and not about money. And I find passionate music the best, don’t you?
And who cares if the current artists put in their full work if the best they can do is “You’re a Jerk” by New Boyz. No thanks, I don’t like the RIAA money driven formula, which also forces me to listen to their crap with the amount they spend on advertising.
“I find it hilarious that you think artists will continue to tour and sell merchandise to makeup for the lost revenue from the illicit, free consumption of their work.”
Um, this is exactly what they already do. I’m pretty sure the vast majority of their money comes from this.
“If people like you complain over 1 dollar tracks and 15 dollar cds as being too expensive.”
It’s not too expensive, it’s just there’s no reason to pay for something that costs nothing to make, and doesn’t really benefit anyone (again, consider a world where digital music is free).
If bread was free to make, would you expect the hungry to pay $1 for it anyway since that’s cheap?
“what will you do when a tickets begin at 200 dollars per show and merchandise is 75 dollars for a t-shirt?”
The prices are already close to this, and I’m sure plenty of pirates show up, since they can’t download the experience.
“And before copyright law, music was generally subject to patronage.”
And before that patronage, there was music. And before whatever else you try to put in, there was music. Try thinking outsite your box for once. Go to anywhere in tribal Africa, there are “bands” there that play for everyone’s enjoyment, with no copyright or patronage or anything. And here you are, telling me that without some form of copyright, music would suffer.
“That doesn’t give you the right to consume the fruits of their hard work for free merely because it’s your personal opinion that they shouldn’t be in their line of work.”
First of all, you can’t consume digital music, it’s free to copy!
And that’s not the argument I was making, read it again. I was saying how artists don’t really deserve tons-o-cash given the volitility of their market and the fact that machines have usurped their distribution mechanism.
Go to thepiratebay.org, mininova.org, etc, look in the music section, at the comments, the lists of seeders/leechers. Go to any rapidshare forum. Then tell me you want to go into a career in distributing digital music. You do so knowing full well that you must fight a machine that is superior to anything you can think up (besides scare tactics [suing people]). Hence, it is unwise.
And I already tried to show you that “hard work” doesn’t alone deserve compensation if the work performend is done so unwisely! Here’s another example, I put HARD WORK into making VHS tapes, which is UNWISE because VHS has been usurped by a superior technology (DVD/BD). People want to watch videos, so there’s a market there. And people apparently respect hard work so no problem there. Wait, so where did I go wrong? Why don’t I make tons-o-cash? Oh right, my distribution method is inferior.
“I find it hilarious…”
At last my smartness lacking antics are paying off ! Chuckle away!
Dumb Guy,
Boy is your name appropriate.
Duh, that’s why I picked it.
[...] Tenenbaum’s defense team, headed by Harvard Professor Charles Nesson and his law students, were left powerless. “Undoubtedly, we were a creative and nontraditional legal team. But going into trial, we were stripped of all our attempts to mitigate Joel’s liability, so today’s outcome has been in the cards all week,” student Debbie Rosenbaum wrote. [...]
The CD-drive in my computer and my car radio included I own 3 cd-players. Last month I bought 4 freaking CD´s. Only one is running on every player, one works only in my car radio and one is not working at all. Why is this? Because the music industry decided to not give a damn about the redbook standard and implement some copy protection instead. And of course it is not possible to get my money back because I could have already made a copy. Honestly, I fell conned right now and the music industry gives a shit. Thats point one.
Point two:
Sure, Joel might not have payed for the music he shared. This is, of course, illegal. But I still think the punishment for a crime should be appropriate. This verdict is everything but appropriate. I have seen notorious drunk-drivers who killed someone with their car walked out of court with a monetary penalty not half as high as this one.
But of course in Joels case the penalty was only so high “to set an example”. Sure.
And this is what self-righteous people like MLS should reflect about.
Is it legal to punish a young person in such a exzessive way just to “set an example”? I thought the u.s. american law system is constrained to look only at the single person and not to use a person for what examples or political goals ever.
I also thought that the law is not only meant as an instrument to punish people but also as a possibility to reform a person. For people like Joel there is no second chance since their lifes are pratically destroyed.
I mean, just look around you. Joel is not the only one. There are in fact a lot people out there which have to deal with $100.000 and up lawsuits.
Point three:
When you look at these cases it is noticeable that the oh-so-concerned-about-the-law RIAA seems to be not SO concerned at all suddenly when it comes to the rights of other people. Illegal browsing on foreign harddrives, hacking online media services, threatening people. But of course this is okay since this is all for the greater good. All men are equal, but some are more equal?
Point four:
Downloading music you have not paid for is illegal. Okay, this is simple. But right now the RIAA is using and abusing laws which are made for a society without the technical possibilities we have now. Some years ago I could videotape a movie or a tv show and share it with friends and thats it. Nowadays I am a fucking pirate and a criminal if I do so.
It is also happened that some artist used a certain piece of music for, lets say, an animation movie AFTER making sure that the copyrright of this music was expired. And then some lawyer came along with an injunction suit because the piece of music was not copyright protected anymore but the ADAPTION was. Who the hell should actually understand these laws?
Point five:
Maybe the big music companies should move their asses and come to terms with the technical standards of these days instead of suing everyone?
It is not our fault that they just overslept the beginning of the 21st century. All I see are restrictions even… no, scratch that… ESPECIALLY when I paid for the music I want to listen to. I can buy songs via iStore but I am not able to play them on every mp3-player because of DRM. I buy CD´s and can not play them on every player.
And there are other things… as european citicen it is not even always possible for me to check out music I am going to buy on some artists official youtube channel because half of the vids there are blocked for european users “due to copyright regulations”… I am not allowed to watch, but of course I am supposed to BUY that stuff? Yeah, right.
MLS, you’re retarded.
[...] Tenenbaum’s defense team, headed by Harvard Professor Charles Nesson and his law students, were left powerless. “Undoubtedly, we were a creative and nontraditional legal team. But going into trial, we were stripped of all our attempts to mitigate Joel’s liability, so today’s outcome has been in the cards all week,” student Debbie Rosenbaum wrote. [...]
thanks for that
I have been to your posts before. The more I learn, the more I keep coming back! ;-P
Awesome site! Your style is so fresh in comparison to most other writers. Thanks for writing when you do, I’ll be sure to read more!