<p>"For Joel Tenenbaum, the Boston University graduate student sued by the recording industry for illegally downloading music, the only question left is: how much?</p>
<p>US District Court Judge Nancy Gertner ruled Thursday night that Tenenbaum, 25, admitted on the witness stand that he infringed on the copyrights of 30 songs that he downloaded and shared online. As a result, she plans to direct the jury to only consider the amount of damages he should pay four record labels that sued him in federal court and whether his infringements were "willful," which could result in much higher damages.</p>
<p>Under federal law, the jury can award the labels $750 to $30,000 for each copyright infringement and as much as $150,000 for each willful infringement. That means that Tenenbaum could owe as much as $4.5 million."</p>
<p>The crazy part is the RIAA picks on this guy and the middle-aged woman who also downloaded maybe 20 songs, but you never hear about the vast majority of people who use these services and share many times more than those relatively small amounts. Scare tactics is what it is.</p>
<p>IN BEFORE “BANDS MAKE THEIR MONEY FROM CONCERTS/I BUY TSHIRTS SO IT’S OK!”</p>
<p>the riaa is fighting a losing battle. it can make examples of all the poor shmucks it wants to, but now that the vast majority web users know what it’s like to get their media for free, they’re not going to suddenly start paying. </p>
<p>also yes it’s stealing. but it’s stealing from people that i honestly don’t give a sh-t about and who clearly do not give a sh-t about me if they spend all their time trying to find ways to take my money rather than make me a content consumer. so, idk, whatever. cry about it. the punishments in cases like these definitely do not fit the crime.</p>
<p>150k a song? How can you possibly justify that? There is no way that this person has uploaded the son 150000 times… at 3 mb for the song that would make it 450gb of upload. Multiply that by 30 and it’s terabytes.</p>
<p>No, it is not stealing. It is copyright infringement.</p>
<p>If I walk into your house, grab your DVD player, and walk out, I have STOLEN something. It is now mine to use, and you are not longer able to use it. The whole of the property was illegally removed from your possession, and now resides in my possession.</p>
<p>If I download a song/movie, the original owner still has a copy. They are able to use it, and I am also able to use it. This is copyright infringement. Not stealing. Stealing means the first party no longer is able to use what the second party took.</p>
<p>Does that make copyright infringement any more legal? Yes, because it depends on the jurisdiction that you are in to decide whether or not it is illegal. It this illegal in the United States? Yes. Interestingly though, it is the uploader who is at fault. Not the downloader. The uploader is committing copyright infringement. The downloader is also a part of it, but under the DMCA, the uploader is at fault.</p>
<p>But no theft has occurred. There has been no stealing.</p>
<p>This won’t stop anyone though, if that’s the game the RIAA is playing. </p>
<p>People know that the chances of them actually getting caught for illegally downloading music is sooooooo slim, they’d rather take their chances than pay $1000 for 1000 songs.</p>
<p>“to take surreptitiously or without permission.” </p>
<p>copyright infringement is a form of stealing but really, semantics are totally useless here. </p>
<p>but ia that there’s no loss to the original copyright owner, at least in a lot of cases. most people i know, myself included, download things that they definitely would not have paid for, so it’s not like anyone’s losing anything in the process.</p>
<p>eta: anyone interested should check out the book “free culture” by lawrence lessig, it gives a really interesting and intricate history of copyright law and the ways in which it’s been exploited by major corporations.</p>
<p>I thought the RIAA said they were going to stop lawsuits and look to ISPs to shut down those downloading illegally?</p>
<p>Oh well. I don’t listen or download a LOT of music so I use iTunes. I find it ridiculous that a student at BU who has promise to make a difference in the world is being sabotaged.</p>
<p>Justify it however you want if that makes you feel better. An artist makes money from their songs. They do not earn anything when you (or others) take their songs online without paying for it. You are taking their art without permission and without paying for it. That is stealing. Save your semantics argument for the courts. Maybe they will buy it.</p>
<p>^And yet the artists seem to be doing just fine, with their multi-million dollar homes and Birkin Bags.</p>
<p>If you want any of us to feel sympathy for the poor music artists that aren’t making money because everyone’s stealing their music (which is complete Bull, by the way, because lots of people still buy music), you’re fighting a losing battle.</p>
<p>Do I myself download? No. But don’t get all high and mighty on us unless you’ve never given or received a burned CD, or even listened to someone else’s music. After all, if you want to listen to it, go out and buy it, according to your argument.</p>
<p>Not always. My brother downloaded a movie, which had been uploaded by the MPAA, and we received a letter in the mail requesting we either delete the file, or face consequences.</p>
<p>People who use Limewire are just asking to get caught. If you’re going to break the law, do it responsibly.</p>