A Boston federal jury has ordered Joel Tenenbaum to pay a total of $675,000—$22,500 per song—to the major record labels for willfully infringing 30 songs by downloading and distributing them over the KaZaA peer-to-peer network.Well.
There are layers and layers of fail that need to be excavated, before we can properly start to understand things. It seems that the defendant is an idiot:
Plaintiffs built their case with forensic evidence collected by MediaSentry, which showed that he was sharing over 800 songs from his computer on August 10, 2004. A subsequent examination of his computer showed that Tenenbaum had used a variety of different peer-to-peer programs, from Napster to KaZaA to AudioGalaxy to iMesh, to obtain music for free, starting in 1999. And he continued to infringe, even after his father warned him in 2002 that he would get sued, even after he received a harshly-worded letter from the plaintiffs’ law firm in 2005, even after he was sued in 2007, and all the way through part of 2008.Wake up call for Mr. Tenenbaum ...
It also seems like when it comes to lawyers, he, err, choose poorly:
The Tenenbaum litigation was dominated by the larger-than-life personality of Tenenbaum’s counsel, Harvard Law School professor [Charles Nesson], who infuriated the plaintiffs, and at times Judge Nancy Gertner, with his unusual litigation tactics. These included making audio recordings of the attorneys and the court, and then posting the results to his blog, and publicizing internal discussions with potential expert witnesses about legal strategy. A sanctions motion against Nesson for his recording practices remains pending.Downloading music is bad, mkay? Downloading music is bad, even after Dad tells you to stop, mkay? Downloading music is bad, even after RIAA lawyers tell you to stop, mkay? Downloading music is bad, even after the RIAA sues your sorry butt, mkay? Uploading loading opposing counsel's conversations to your blog is bad, mkay?
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, let's get to the important stuff. Epic, unbelievable, astonishing Fail. If I'd been on the jury, I'd have asked if it were allowed to add another cool mil just for having to listen to all the dumb.
Second - and this is the important part - this here represents the cream of the Intellectual Elite. Boston University PhD student. Big shot Harvard professor lawyer. These are the people who want to run your health care.
The stupid - it burns!
2 comments:
The flip side of this is that RIAA is attempting to use the courts to force artists and consumers to submit to a business plan that technology has rendered obsolete.
It is ridiculous that a person should record a song that someone else sang, which in turn was written by someone else, and then expect that you should get a payout for the rest of your life for that act.
As a paramedic, I save lives. Should I use the court to force each of my patients to pay me when they wake up each morning, because they are using my intellectual property every day that they live?
What about the carpenter who makes a chair? If I copy that chair by making an exact copy of it, should I pay the carpenter? What if that chair is in my restaurant, should I pay the carpenter each time a paying customer sits in it?
Sorry, but spending an hour singing one song in a studio does not entitle you to a free payout for the rest of your life.
Divemedic, I agree that their business model is Teh Broken, and have posted about that before.
I'm just stunned at teh number of separate epic fails that the defendant and his lawyer did. You have to work hard to fail that big.
Post a Comment