The law vs the greater good part 2, music

[Texashiker]

In the first thread we talked about medicine and the effects pirates had on the market.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2265347&highlight=

I think we all pretty much agreed on with reduced profit, companies were less likely to invest into research and development.

In this thread, I would like to discuss how the law affects the general public when it comes to music.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19370862

Joel Tenenbaum must pay $675,000 (£426,000) in damages awarded to the major US music labels after his request for a retrial was turned down.

Mr Tenenbaum, 25, was found guilty of illegally downloading and distributing 31 songs in 2007.

If I go to a music store, steal 2 music cds, all I am charged with is theft.

How does 31 songs equal $675,000?

With the medical field one of the main arguments was research and development, and the time needed to test a medicine.

How can the law justify punishing someone with a $675,000 judgement for 31 songs?

 

[Brainonska511]

He admitted to uploading and downloading music in court and was given repeated DMCA notices over several years
(your article) :

In court Mr Tenenbaum had admitted to file-sharing around 800 songs.

http://www.boston.com/businessupdat...preme-court/QinlYIwd2UdAKOIhaNGPvL/story.html

Suing Tenenbaum were Sony Corp. and its Arista Records, Warner Music Group’s Warner Bros. and Atlantic labels and Vivendi SA’s Universal Music Group. They said he made songs available on various sites including Napster, Morpheus, Kazaa, and LimeWire, distributing songs to millions of other people. He continued after being sent a letter from the record companies, and blamed sisters, houseguests and even burglars, the companies said.

And finally:

In her ruling, Zobel wrote that though Tenenbaum’s only charged for those 30 songs, “There was further evidence about the scope and scale of Tenenbaum’s infringement activities.” His “illegal conduct lasted for at least eight years,” she said, and he “distributed thousands of copyrighted works.” It was a long-established pattern of willful infringement, she said:

He personally received multiple warnings from various sources – including his father in 2002, his college in 2003, and plaintiffs in 2005 – and he was warned that his activities could subject him to liability of up to $150,000 per infringement In spite of these warnings, he continued to download and distribute copyrighted materials; indeed, even after receiving Sony’s 2005 cease and desist letter, trial evidence shows that defendant continued his activities for two more years, until Sony filed this lawsuit against him.​

Now, I don't agree with what seems to be perpetual copyright, but it also doesn't give me the right to just download and enjoy music for free without providing the owners with some form of compensation. The copyright holders control the rights to their intellectual property.

Edit:
To further add, it's not just $675,000 for 30 songs; it's most likely that amount because of the the willful infringement aspect (repeated flaunting of warnings and continued music sharing).

 

[CycloWizard]

I think a better analogy to what he did would be stealing CDs, then making thousands of copies and handing them out outside the store for free.

 

[Anarchist420]

Too many people seem to forget that ip enforcement requires theft.

That said, those people should ask themselves if they want to be forced to pay for someone else's privileges or if they want they want the free market to handle the situation.

Also, the op is indeed speaking generally because I said that even though patents on drugs may increase the profits of a few companies, they don't help create new drugs.

 

[Texashiker]

Edit:
To further add, it's not just $675,000 for 30 songs; it's most likely that amount because of the the willful infringement aspect (repeated flaunting of warnings and continued music sharing).

Lets say that you are driving 30 miles over the speed limit, would a $675,000 ticket be justified?

 

[Smoblikat]

Lets say that you are driving 30 miles over the speed limit, would a $675,000 ticket be justified?

No it wouldnt, because its apples to oranges. If youre driving 30mph over the speed limit youre not hurting anyone or stealing from anyone, this guy downloaded multiple songs then sold them multiple times, therefore each songs value increases exponentially after each sale.

 

[Texashiker]

this guy downloaded multiple songs then sold them multiple times, therefore each songs value increases exponentially after each sale.

How does a 99 cent song someone can download off itunes or amazon, turn into a $150,000 song?

 

[Brainonska511]

How does a 99 cent song someone can download off itunes or amazon, turn into a $150,000 song?

Doesn't matter. It's not his right to distribute the song. Plus, he willfully infringed the copyright holder's rights by continuing to distribute music illegally despite repeated warnings over a number of years.

 

[Texashiker]

Doesn't matter. It's not his right to distribute the song. Plus, he willfully infringed the copyright holder's rights by continuing to distribute music illegally despite repeated warnings over a number of years.

Shouldn't the punishment fit the crime?

How do we justify ruining a persons financial life over some 99 cent songs?

 

[spacejamz]

Shouldn't the punishment fit the crime?

How do we justify ruining a persons financial life over some 99 cent songs?

as stated earlier, it is not just the songs...

How does running a toll booth (that ranges in price from $.23 to $1.33) result in someone owing over $180K ?? easy, run it 8,443 times and ignore all of the warning/letters that you receive....

https://www.ntta.org/custinfo/BIlling-and-Payment/Pages/Top_Toll_Violators.aspx

 

[CycloWizard]

Shouldn't the punishment fit the crime?

How do we justify ruining a persons financial life over some 99 cent songs?

Basic math: the amount he "stole" has nothing to do with what he paid for the songs and everything to do with revenue lost by those who downloaded the songs from him. If 681,818 copies of those songs were downloaded, then he was essentially a dealer that sold $675,000 worth of copyrighted material.

 

[Texashiker]

Basic math: the amount he "stole" has nothing to do with what he paid for the songs and everything to do with revenue lost by those who downloaded the songs from him. If 681,818 copies of those songs were downloaded, then he was essentially a dealer that sold $675,000 worth of copyrighted material.

Maybe he uploaded 10 copies? So that would have been a whole $10.

 

[CycloWizard]

Maybe he uploaded 10 copies? So that would have been a whole $10.

Why does it matter how many he uploaded? What matters is how many other people downloaded. If he bought one copy of a book, then mass produced 10,000 copies of it and gave them away outside a book store, what is the loss to the publisher of the book - 1 or 10,000 copies?

 

[Texashiker]

If he bought one copy of a book, then mass produced 10,000 copies of it and gave them away outside a book store, what is the loss to the publisher of the book - 1 or 10,000 copies?

It seems the whole punishment is based off an "if".

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

It seems as if the crimes of those who downloaded are being attributed to him, which seems unfair (and illogical).

 

[spacejamz]

Maybe he uploaded 10 copies? So that would have been a whole $10.

so you think appropriate punishment for this is $10??

 

[wirednuts]

Why does it matter how many he uploaded? What matters is how many other people downloaded. If he bought one copy of a book, then mass produced 10,000 copies of it and gave them away outside a book store, what is the loss to the publisher of the book - 1 or 10,000 copies?

yeah i get what you mean, but most people who download music would have never paid for it anyway. they would just live without it. i know that doesnt make it right or just, but it should be considered when you go to lay out the fines

 

[DaveSimmons]

If you are caught speeding hundreds of times over 8 years the punishment will be more than $10.

If you decide to make your own print run of 10,000 copies of a NY Times bestseller the punishment will be more than $10.

If you upload and distribute hundreds of songs over the internet over a period of 8 years, and ignore multiple warnings to stop, then the theft is much more severe than stealing 1 CD.

 

[Texashiker]

If you are caught speeding hundreds of times over 8 years the punishment will be more than $10.

If you decide to make your own print run of 10,000 copies of a NY Times bestseller the punishment will be more than $10.

If you upload and distribute hundreds of songs over the internet over a period of 8 years, and ignore multiple warnings to stop, then the theft is much more severe than stealing 1 CD.

Just because the law says the jury can award certain damages, should they do so?

so you think appropriate punishment for this is $10??

I think fair market value is good enough, yes.

 

[CycloWizard]

It seems as if the crimes of those who downloaded are being attributed to him, which seems unfair (and illogical).

I agree to some extent, but in this case he enabled them to commit their crime. They could not have stolen the property without someone first making it available illegally. It's simply easier to go after the dealer than the buyer, just as in illegal drug use.

 

[CycloWizard]

yeah i get what you mean, but most people who download music would have never paid for it anyway. they would just live without it. i know that doesnt make it right or just, but it should be considered when you go to lay out the fines

I agree and I disagree with this ruling. I was just simply pointing out the flaw in the theory that he should only be penalized for only the nominal cost of each song he shared.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Just because the law says the jury can award certain damages, should they do so?

I think fair market value is good enough, yes.

If you break into a closed store pr empty house and loot it, the penalty is usually more than the list price of what you steal.

20 years for one loaf of bread would be excessive, but if you robbed the same store for 8 years straight then 20 years would make sense.

 

[wirednuts]

I agree and I disagree with this ruling. I was just simply pointing out the flaw in the theory that he should only be penalized for only the nominal cost of each song he shared.

yeah its no different then selling drugs really. you dont get fined for what the bag costs, it has more to do with that the bag is potentially worth.

 

[wirednuts]

If you break into a closed store pr empty house and loot it, the penalty is usually more than the list price of what you steal.

20 years for one loaf of bread would be excessive, but if you robbed the same store for 8 years straight then 20 years would make sense.

thing is copied mp3's are just worth however many people MIGHT have downloaded and paid for them, which i dont see any way to actually compute.

 

[DaveSimmons]

thing is copied mp3's are just worth however many people MIGHT have downloaded and paid for them, which i dont see any way to actually compute.

Which is one reason for statutory damages. Which he knew about, and thumbed his nose at:

"He personally received multiple warnings from various sources – including his father in 2002, his college in 2003, and plaintiffs in 2005 – and he was warned that his activities could subject him to liability of up to $150,000 per infringement In spite of these warnings, he continued to download and distribute copyrighted materials; indeed, even after receiving Sony’s 2005 cease and desist letter, trial evidence shows that defendant continued his activities for two more years, until Sony filed this lawsuit against him."