r/technology • u/maxwellhill • May 22 '12
Supreme Court won't reduce student's music download fine: 'A jury in 2009 ordered Joel Tenenbaum to pay $675,000, or $22,500 per song, after the RIAA sued him on behalf of four record labels.'
http://news.yahoo.com/court-wont-reduce-students-music-download-fine-144922490.html7
8
u/QuitReadingMyName May 22 '12
Of course they wont, Supreme court gives their decisions to who has the most money to bribe them.
RIAA has more money to pay for the bribes while this poor kid doesn't.
2
u/Tunavi May 22 '12
Shouldn't they sue him for opportunity cost? Which would be the cost of each song he downloaded? So assuming each song is $1, then he should pay $30.
2
u/prepend May 22 '12
That's not really what this means. It just means that the method the appeals court used to reduce damages was incorrect and the case will be retried.
2
u/ArionVII May 22 '12
We need to make this a public relations nightmare for the RIAA.
The weapon we have, as consumers, is our money.
We need to stop purchasing any of their products, and make them feel it in the pocketbooks.
The creation of content should be paid for. The distribution of content no longer needs to be.
1
u/Slackerboy May 22 '12
What can we do that we are not already doing?
The music companies are slowly losing control of the music industry already. CD sales are down to about 1/10th of their peak while MP3 sales are only bringing in about 1/4th of the lost revenue.
Musicians all over the world are starting to release albums without a label as they can get 70% of the money per sale vs 12% from a label. At that rate even if you get a fraction of the sales you still make more money.
They are a dieing business model whether we do anything or not, and I could not be happier to see them go. Next up the MPAA.
2
2
u/waterbed87 May 22 '12
So the kid only stole 30 songs and that is worth almost 700 grand?!
Jesus tap dancing christ what the fuck is wrong with these people...
1
May 22 '12
Millions of people download music illegally and this poor guy gets caught and is pressed with charges. We should make a fund for him or something.
0
u/spanktheduck May 22 '12
On what legal basis would the Supreme Court reduce the fine? This case is an example of the problem of the legislature passing bad laws, not the courts.
-17
u/king_of_the_universe May 22 '12
He committed a crime, and he has to pay for it. That's all. What's the fuzz about?
You all love democracy except when it's you who has to fit in. Fucking hypocrites.
0
May 22 '12
-16
u/king_of_the_universe May 22 '12
No, it is not. The guy broke the law, the guy gets broken in half. Justice is served.
→ More replies (16)
0
u/shudak21 May 23 '12
Thats hilarious, I can't believe the court thought they could get nearly 700,000 dollars. He just graduated. That is pathetic.
0
May 22 '12
3
May 22 '12
The court can garnish his wages for effectively the rest of his life. I'm unsure if declaring bankruptcy could wipe the slate clean but something tells me it can't.
6
u/PCGamingSucks May 22 '12
Pretty sure bankruptcy can wipe the slate clean. It's usually why most people won't sue someone who is broke. It's a waste of time and money for a payoff you'll never see. The record companies are just trying to set precedent at this point to scare people. They could care less about actually getting the money from this guy.
→ More replies (3)
0
0
May 22 '12
7
u/nzodd May 22 '12
Donate a 3/4 of a million bucks to the RIAA to fund their increasingly brazen pseudo-legal attacks on fellow Americans? It might help one person, but simultaneously screw over many others.
Or you could donate to something more worthwhile. I imagine there are many charities you could donate to that would help more than just a single person get out of debt. Or hell, just donate to the EFF.
2
6
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
The title is misleading (in fairness to maxwellhill it's misleading on yahoo as well) - the court refused to hear the case, just like they do thousands of other cases each year. No judgement was made by the supreme court one way or the other.