We have been following the outrageously abusive fines being imposed on citizens for downloading and sharing songs — obscenely large fines allowed by Congress under laws written by lobbyists for the music and movie industries. Law firms have been targeting even people who try to inform citizens of their rights. Now, in one of the most abusive cases involving a former Boston university student, the Supreme Court has refused to review a $675,000 fine against Joel Tenenbaum, 28, for downloading and sharing 30 songs. Despite the general condemnation of these actions, Congress is cowed by pressure from the industry lobby. The most abusive litigation is directed by the Recording Industry Association of America.
The ridiculous award was handed down by a jury in 2009 — $22,500 per song. Notably, a federal judge called the fine unconstitutionally excessive and reduced it to $67,500 — still quite high. However, the First Circuit reinstated that original penalty in an appeal from the industry lawyers and now the Supreme Court has refused to review the matter.
The use of the law to deal with “consumer copying” has turned it into a nightmare for ordinary citizens — and a bonanza for industry lawyers.
The RIAA appears to have an open revolving door for members or staff who help it out in hammering citizens. For example, Mitch Glazier, Senior Executive Vice President, is heralded on the RIAA website as responsible for the draconian laws being used against citizens. The website states that “[b]efore joining RIAA, Glazier served as Chief Counsel for intellectual property to the influential Judiciary Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives, where he helped draft and steer into law a series of copyright reforms including the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, and the 1997 No Electronic Theft Act, among other key intellectual property laws.” RIAA then gave him a job and a huge amount of money. The RIAA was long criticized for its lavish expenditures on members of Congress. Congress has not only given the RIAA what it has demanded but has put its lawyers on the federal bench. In the meantime, legislators are falling over themselves to give more powers to RIAA lawyers.
Source: Yahoo
pete,
depends on the copyright laws.
“How would you like it if OJ cut your head off?”
I bet that would sting?
if i purchased the song years ago on an obsolete playing method don’t i still have the right to that song for my own use?
anon,
Sounds like we’re on the same page. But I’ve been where I am since 1996, so it won’t do me any good to go back where I was ten years ago.
How would you like it if OJ cut your head off and got away with it?
Okay, when I get there, should I move back to where I lived there for 30 years, or move back to where I lived there for 10 years? Cause I sure as hell hate where I live now!
(I’m probably moving back to where I lived for 10 years.)
I am still not sure why you hate Orange Juice, but I’m putting that down in your liabilities column, Mr. Accountant.
anon,
My major malfunction is you don’t know shit. Maybe you should move to California.
anon,
It’s called prima facie documentary evidence that the judicial system ignored. The judge said to the jury “well I think he is, but you have to make your own decision.” Go back to law school. And BTW – Orange Juice is finding out Nevada isn’t California.
Dude, what the fuck is your major malfunction?
Orange Juice? Thinking I’m a lawyer? Seriously Mr. Accountant, go fill out some TPS reports or something.
anon,
It’s called prima facie documentary evidence that the judicial system ignored. The judge said to the jury “well I think he is, but you have to make your own decision.” Go back to law school. And BTW – Orange Juice is finding out Nevada isn’t California.
Matt,
“What if the evidence proves he really isn’t guilty, and the jury finds otherwise. ”
That’s not really jury nullification which “is a constitutional doctrine which allows juries to acquit criminal defendants who are technically guilty, but who do not deserve punishment. It occurs in a trial when a jury reaches a verdict contrary to the judge’s instructions as to the law.”
That’s more of just a biased, corrupt, railroading jury.
I think I have heard of occasions when a judge throws out a jury’s guilty verdict — I am not sure what that is called or the justification for that.
The fine is abusive, no matter what the crime is.
Yeah it’s stealing don’t steal it’s Pretty simple .. I think they should fine anyone who steals why is this different.. People think everything should be free these days..
anon 1, May 22, 2012 at 10:21 am
If anyone with this sort of legally sanctioned abuse went out and took extreme measures against members of the system that perpetuated this, and I was on his jury, I would vote not guilty regardless of the evidence.
========================================================
What if the evidence proves he really isn’t guilty, and the jury finds otherwise. Is that American justice? I’m not a lawyer, I’m an accountant. I just heard on the news today that Jeffrey Skilling is trying to get out of jail. Probably won’t do him any good. And to the best of my knowledge, Orange Juice is still in Nevada. So much for the dream team. If the glove doesn’t fit?? Nevada isn’t Brentwood, California.
Jason,
I think he means that you would never get the smart phone to allow you to use the spellings and in some cases your choice of words.
As it is I waste time on my laptop battling with GMAIL. At times wish for a dumb thing I had years ago.
Smart means subservient to the will of the designer.
Good luck with that
.
Some acquaintance once mentioned her aversion to updates. I will see if I can get permission to reprint. Maybe it is copyrighted.
I have no sympathy for those who steal artists’ work thinking it’s free. I have no concern about the fines imposed.
@Indigo Jones-
“A decade ago, no problem to make a VHS recording of a TV show — try doing that with a DVD player!”
DVD recorders are widely available. They weren’t around when DVD players came out because the technology wasn’t ready for inexpensive burners. Yes, DVD recorders suffer a loss of quality compared to the source material, but so did VHS.
“The newer technology is less functional!”
You can have my DVR when you pry it from my dead, remote-control-curled hand.
“Try writing a novel on a smart phone…”
I’m still trying to figure this one out.
If anyone with this sort of legally sanctioned abuse went out and took extreme measures against members of the system that perpetuated this, and I was on his jury, I would vote not guilty regardless of the evidence.
This is why
a) juries should be informed of nullification
b) the 2nd amendment is so important.
A legally condoned, legally enforced $675,000 fine at the beginning of your adult life for the crime of downloading 30 songs when he was 20. Why should this guy bother getting a job at all? Why shouldn’t he just go after the system with a gun?
The RIAA is out of hand, a couple years ago they were hiring unlicensed private investigators to download files off people’s machines to prove that illuegal infringment was taking place.
The whole copyright regime needs an overhaul. It’s producing all sorts of absurd results:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_prime
Under today’s copyight regime, the same remix, recycling, and wisdom traditions that gave rise to the Bible and the blues would be outlawed. Most people who upload copyrighted music to YouTube aren’t trying to infringe, they’re just trying to participate in culture; the emotional impulse is some satisfaction with being strictly a consumer.
Tech formats are bottling people into this consumer behavior. A decade ago, no problem to make a VHS recording of a TV show — try doing that with a DVD player! The newer technology is less functional! Try writing a novel on a smart phone…
Even the courts are becoming bullies.
The Supreme Court only accepts about 3% of the requested appeals. It’s called a Writ of Certiorari. They get about 7,000 appeal requests a year. There are only nine justices. Figure it out.