• File-sharer told to pay $675,000
    57 replies, posted
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19370862#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa[/url]
[QUOTE]Mr Tenenbaum, 25, was found guilty of illegally downloading and distributing 31 songs in 2007.[/QUOTE] What the fuck? He should only be fined £30 (99p*31) at most, it's fucking bullshit that he should be fined that much for harmless data/entertainment.
It was originally 5 thousand. They upped it as he fought it after they declined his offer of 500 (he was 16, he doesn't have that kind of money).
So they go after this guy, when all he did was download 31 songs. Hell, I know people who have illegally downloaded over 5000 songs.
The people involved in screwing this kid over should eat shit and die.
[QUOTE=Liem;37388904]So they go after this guy, when all he did was download 31 songs. Hell, I know people who have illegally downloaded over 5000 songs.[/QUOTE] I'm sure the majority of anyone with internet has downloaded at least 10 artist discographies.
[QUOTE=Amez;37388931]The people involved in screwing this kid over should eat shit and die.[/QUOTE] I bet the people who want $675,000 earn that in a month
You people are missing the point, he's not getting that big a fine for simply downloading 31 songs, but also for distributing them which would cause a lot of damages in lost sales in the eyes of the people who sell the stuff. Now sure I think this is dumb as well but you people were missing the point of the case so I had to correct you guys. [editline]lol[/editline] First of all it's not stated where he downloaded the songs from so to jump to conclusions about torrenting is a very loose argument. Secondly, I never said that the amount they were asking for was reasonable, in fact I said I thought it was dumb... however you people were still wrong as to say that it was simply for downloading the 31 songs. I mean seriously, what's wrong with you people? Can't you read?
[QUOTE=Yzooo;37389057]You people are missing the point, he's not getting that big a fine for simply downloading 31 songs, but also for distributing them which would cause a lot of damages in lost sales. Now sure I think this is dumb as well but you people were missing the point of the case so I had to correct you guys.[/QUOTE] I know, but the sort of people who are going to pirate were never going to buy them in the first place.
[QUOTE=The mouse;37388797]What the fuck? He should only be fined £30 (99p*31) at most, it's fucking bullshit that he should be fined that much for harmless data/entertainment.[/QUOTE] If every song was downloaded 1 time only then it would be 30. I'm not against piracy, just saying.
download some songs worth 1$ each, or so. in all reality it should be 31$, right? NOPE. 650k!
[QUOTE=SatansSin;37389484]download some songs worth 1$ each, or so. in all reality it should be 31$, right? NOPE. 650k![/QUOTE] He distributed them
[QUOTE=SatansSin;37389484]download some songs worth 1$ each, or so. in all reality it should be 31$, right? NOPE. 650k![/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Liem;37388904]So they go after this guy, when all he did was download 31 songs. Hell, I know people who have illegally downloaded over 5000 songs.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=The mouse;37388797]What the fuck? He should only be fined £30 (99p*31) at most, it's fucking bullshit that he should be fined that much for harmless data/entertainment.[/QUOTE] Do you guys not know how to read more than a sentence? [quote=THE FUCKING ARTICLE;37388705]In court Mr Tenenbaum had admitted to file-sharing around 800 songs.[/quote]
Seriously? Why did they even bother pursuing him? £5,000 (The original fine) is [i]peanuts[/i] to these record label companies! This guy is only 16, this is really fucked up.
Disgusting.
[QUOTE=Liem;37388904]So they go after this guy, when all he did was download 31 songs. Hell, I know people who have illegally downloaded over 5000 songs.[/QUOTE] I know hundreds who have downloaded 5000 or more. Fucking RIAA
[quote]The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) said it was "pleased" with the decision made by District Court Judge Rya Zobel in Massachusetts, reports Cnet.[/quote] [t]http://www.ariafresca.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Mr-Burns.gif[/t]
[QUOTE=Reader;37389500]He distributed them[/QUOTE] And? Because he gave the files to someone else he has to pay for them owning it? It's completely flawed. Especially when after paying all these "losses" he'd still have to buy the track again. And lets not forget these "losses" are false, because even after paying off all the losses the people he's distributed it too still don't own a legit license which was clearly paid for in the losses. Frankly I'm pretty sick of all these big-ass companies who would see some young person live in total poverty, just so they can line their pockets with money which they won't even live to spend in their lifetime. This whole idea that money means success, and is therefore the stairway to heaven is just pathetic.
Don't do illegal shit then.
[quote]In court Mr Tenenbaum had admitted to file-sharing around [b]800[/b] songs. "I used the computer. I [b]uploaded[/b], I downloaded music," he said.[/quote] Is this an addition to the article or is FP just selectively ignoring things they don't like again
[QUOTE=Yzooo;37389057]You people are missing the point, he's not getting that big a fine for simply downloading 31 songs, but also for distributing them which would cause a lot of damages in lost sales. Now sure I think this is dumb as well but you people were missing the point of the case so I had to correct you guys. [editline]lol[/editline] First of all it's not stated where he downloaded the songs from so to jump to conclusions about torrenting is a very loose argument. Secondly, I never said that the amount they were asking for was reasonable, in fact I said I thought it was dumb... however you people were still wrong as to say that it was simply for downloading the 31 songs. I mean seriously, what's wrong with you people? Can't you read?[/QUOTE] Download != Lost Sale.
Good to see in this justice served
[QUOTE=BBgamer720;37392477]Download != Lost Sale.[/QUOTE] You know I might have worded it a bit bad, but I didn't mean that I thought that... I meant that's the reason why their money demands are so high in these cases.
So the music artist didn't make the nickel they were promised for those 30 somgs?
Wouldn't be surprised if this guy tops himself.
[QUOTE=scout1;37392275]Is this an addition to the article or is FP just selectively ignoring things they don't like again[/QUOTE] Saying he distributed / uploaded the music doesn't mean he was throwing them into .rars and sharing them on the pirate bay He was 16 and it was 2003, he was most likely using Limewire. Most people still don't know it quietly seeded your music in the background
[QUOTE=cdlink14;37389762]And? Because he gave the files to someone else he has to pay for them owning it? It's completely flawed. Especially when after paying all these "losses" he'd still have to buy the track again. And lets not forget these "losses" are false, because even after paying off all the losses the people he's distributed it too still don't own a legit license which was clearly paid for in the losses. Frankly I'm pretty sick of all these big-ass companies who would see some young person live in total poverty, just so they can line their pockets with money which they won't even live to spend in their lifetime. This whole idea that money means success, and is therefore the stairway to heaven is just pathetic.[/QUOTE] They're really just sending a message. "If you illegally circulate our product we'll completely fuck you with a lawsuit". It makes you think twice before deciding to pirate another album.
[QUOTE=The mouse;37388797]What the fuck? He should only be fined £30 (99p*31) at most, it's fucking bullshit that he should be fined that much for harmless data/entertainment.[/QUOTE] that logic is fucking stupid. You don't fine someone the same price as what they stole because then it turns into "well, I can get this for free and maybe have to pay a dollar, or i can pay a dollar" charging someone a 20000% markup on illegal downloading is stupid (and if anyone had read the article at all, you would know it's not that high), but you still need to give people a disincentive for this shit
I don't see why they think fining this guy that much money is going to work. Most people will never have that kind of money, and even if he had a 6 figure job it would take him 8 years at least to pay it off, probably more depending on living conditions. They want to make an example of people, but that's just way too much money.
[QUOTE=iownuall;37399969]I don't see why they think fining this guy that much money is going to work. Most people will never have that kind of money, and even if he had a 6 figure job it would take him 8 years at least to pay it off, probably more depending on living conditions. They want to make an example of people, but that's just way too much money.[/QUOTE] they don't care about getting the man's money, they care about not losing any more of it, which is why making an example of some people by charging ridiculously high prices
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.