Log in

View Full Version : Judge cuts fine for file sharing by 90%



Grand Master Melon
9th July 2010, 10:06 PM
Nancy Gohring, IDG News
Jul 9, 2010 5:20 pm

Even after cutting a damages award in a file-sharing case to one-tenth the original sum, a judge said Friday the new fine was still excessive.

The Massachusetts judge on Friday reduced to US$67,500 an original $675,000 award that a jury had ordered a Boston Ph.D student to pay for illegally sharing music files.

"There is no question that this reduced award is still severe, even harsh," Judge Nancy Gertner of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts wrote in her opinion on Friday. "It not only adequately compensates the plaintiffs for the relatively minor harm that [Joel] Tenenbaum caused them; it sends a strong message that those who exploit peer-to-peer networks to unlawfully download and distribute copyrighted works run the risk of incurring substantial damages awards."

Read the rest here (http://www.pcworld.com/article/200850/judge_cuts_filesharing_fine_to_67500.html)

sirgonzo420
9th July 2010, 10:11 PM
Nancy Gohring, IDG News
Jul 9, 2010 5:20 pm

Even after cutting a damages award in a file-sharing case to one-tenth the original sum, a judge said Friday the new fine was still excessive.

The Massachusetts judge on Friday reduced to US$67,500 an original $675,000 award that a jury had ordered a Boston Ph.D student to pay for illegally sharing music files.

"There is no question that this reduced award is still severe, even harsh," Judge Nancy Gertner of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts wrote in her opinion on Friday. "It not only adequately compensates the plaintiffs for the relatively minor harm that [Joel] Tenenbaum caused them; it sends a strong message that those who exploit peer-to-peer networks to unlawfully download and distribute copyrighted works run the risk of incurring substantial damages awards."

Read the rest here (http://www.pcworld.com/article/200850/judge_cuts_filesharing_fine_to_67500.html)




It's funny you of all people should bring this up.

A jewish judge is giving a jewish defendant a break!


lolololol




EDIT: just noticed the woman who wrote the article is jewish too!

hahaha

Grand Master Melon
9th July 2010, 10:17 PM
Nancy Gohring, IDG News
Jul 9, 2010 5:20 pm

Even after cutting a damages award in a file-sharing case to one-tenth the original sum, a judge said Friday the new fine was still excessive.

The Massachusetts judge on Friday reduced to US$67,500 an original $675,000 award that a jury had ordered a Boston Ph.D student to pay for illegally sharing music files.

"There is no question that this reduced award is still severe, even harsh," Judge Nancy Gertner of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts wrote in her opinion on Friday. "It not only adequately compensates the plaintiffs for the relatively minor harm that [Joel] Tenenbaum caused them; it sends a strong message that those who exploit peer-to-peer networks to unlawfully download and distribute copyrighted works run the risk of incurring substantial damages awards."

Read the rest here (http://www.pcworld.com/article/200850/judge_cuts_filesharing_fine_to_67500.html)




It's funny you of all people should bring this up.

A jewish judge is giving a jewish defendant a break!


lolololol




EDIT: just noticed the woman who wrote the article is jewish too!

hahaha


I'm not sure but I'd bet that most of the big record companies are run by jews too.

Ponce
9th July 2010, 10:17 PM
But remember, those living in the US consist of only 3% of the population....... and if you believe that then you can also believe that I will sell you my stash of tp for ten bucks ;D

sirgonzo420
9th July 2010, 10:27 PM
I'm not sure but I'd bet that most of the big record companies are run by jews too.


I'm sure you'd win that bet.

In fact, I'd wager on it.

;D

Phoenix
9th July 2010, 10:30 PM
The fine should be actual loss...which is ZERO.

Grand Master Melon
9th July 2010, 10:32 PM
The fine should be actual loss...which is ZERO.


I don't see how an actual loss could be proven but I would say that 67k is way over the top but quite an improvment over 675k.

Skirnir
9th July 2010, 10:34 PM
Why not file Chapter 7 and be done with it? Better to have fried credit than be out $67.5K

Phoenix
9th July 2010, 11:21 PM
The fine should be actual loss...which is ZERO.


I don't see how an actual loss could be proven but I would say that 67k is way over the top but quite an improvment over 675k.


Music is music not "property." If someone "owns" music, then they own a part of someone's mind. That is slavery. I hear a jingle, and replay it in my head, for free...I'm "infringing on their 'intellectual property'." BS

Grand Master Melon
9th July 2010, 11:33 PM
The fine should be actual loss...which is ZERO.


I don't see how an actual loss could be proven but I would say that 67k is way over the top but quite an improvment over 675k.


Music is music not "property." If someone "owns" music, then they own a part of someone's mind. That is slavery. I hear a jingle, and replay it in my head, for free...I'm "infringing on their 'intellectual property'." BS



I think there's quite a difference between hearing a jingle in your head and sharing files of music which are made to be sold commercially.

Phoenix
10th July 2010, 01:30 AM
I think there's quite a difference between hearing a jingle in your head and sharing files of music which are made to be sold commercially.


How so? They're intangible, they're data, replicable without loss to the original. If one is sharing something not for profit, why is that a crime? It's as insane as (supposedly, "legally") having to pay royalties to sing "Happy Birthday" in public.

jetgraphics
10th July 2010, 02:09 AM
I am wondering where the defendant will find any dollars...
Federal Reserve notes aren't dollars.
In fact, they're worthless (no par value), and non-negotiable.
So if the plaintiff claims a loss, in FRNs, which have less than zero value (debt), then the plaintiff should pay the defendant for removing 67,000 frns from its liability.
-(-67,000)
67,000
That's equitable - have the plaintiff pay the defendant.

ximmy
10th July 2010, 01:24 PM
I used to listen to mp3's and often bought a CD when I liked the music... as soon as these record companies started lawsuits against users I stopped buying CD's completely.. pluck em.