AfterDawn: Tech news

Joel Tenenbaum fined $675,000 over copyright infringement

Written by Andre Yoskowitz (Google+) @ 01 Aug 2009 19:52 User comments (57)

Joel Tenenbaum fined $675,000 over copyright infringement After just three hours of deliberations, a jury has ruled that convicted pirate Joel Tenenbaum has willfully infringed on copyrights, and has awarded the RIAA and the media companies $675,000 USD, $22,500 for each of the 30 songs he admitted to sharing.
In some ways, Tenenbaum should be grateful, as the jury could have awarded up to $150,000 in penalties per track. In the recent ruling against Jammie Thomas-Rasset, the jury awarded the RIAA $1.92 million USD, on only 24 tracks.

Tenenbaums Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson added of the decision: "It's a bankrupting award."

"I'm disappointed, but not surprised, but I'm thankful that it wasn't much bigger, that it wasn't millions," Tenenbaum added, via Arstechnica. Tenenbaum also specifically noted that if he loses on appeal, he will be forced into bankruptcy.

On the other hand, the RIAA was ecstatic with the jury's decision: "We are grateful for the jury’s service and their recognition of the impact of illegal downloading on the music community. We appreciate that Mr. Tenenbaum finally acknowledged that artists and music companies deserve to be paid for their work. From the beginning that’s what this case has been about. We only wish he had done so sooner rather than lie about his illegal behavior."

Previous Next  

57 user comments

11.8.2009 20:07

Let me fix this for you:
"We are grateful for the jury’s service and their paid recognition of the impact of illegal Uploading on the music EMPIRE. We appreciate that Mr. Tenenbaum finally acknowledged that the EMPIRE and music vultures deserve to be paid for our thievery. From the beginning that’s what this mad slaughter has been about. We only wish he had received the full penalty, jury's are not cheap you know."


Thats better

21.8.2009 20:10

Quote:
...has awarded the RIAA and the media companies $675,000 USD

Quote:
...the jury awarded the RIAA $1.92 million USD
Another example of these greedy hypocrites (RIAA) at work again.
The RIAA says,
Quote:
...artists and music companies deserve to be paid for their work

Yet look at who is really cashing in, and who isn't. I think we all know who the real robber is.

31.8.2009 20:19
llongtheD
Inactive

Yet another shining example of how large corporations and their lobbyists, can influence stupid and corrupt politicians into making these ridiculous laws. We would have to use the term laws loosely however, more like rules that benefit the dirtbags.

41.8.2009 20:30

Originally posted by llongtheD:
Yet another shining example of how large corporations and their lobbyists, can influence stupid and corrupt politicians into making these ridiculous laws. We would have to use the term laws loosely however, more like rules that benefit the dirtbags.

Until lobbying is a hanging offense, anarchy is a better option.

51.8.2009 20:38

This makes me sick to my stom. I hope the RIAA burns in hell. This is like Robin Hood in some pervert twist. Steal from the poor and give to the filthy rich. If the RIAA were a country, they would have death squads and be shooting people on sight. There's only one solution in my mind. Stop buying anything from the RIAA. Borrow CDs from your library or friends and burn them that way. Moby recently wrote about how the RIAA needs to be disbanded and I couldn't agree more.

http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/18252.cfm

Since when is listening to music a crime. Shame on the jury for allowing such a heinous award! They should have awarded the RIAA $30 max. When are people going to finally revolt against all these madness. Why not just start burning people at the stake? That would have the same effect. This is just disgusting.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 01 Aug 2009 @ 21:45

61.8.2009 21:43

So lets see...it is OK to download music for free (aka Stealing)and burn to MP3/CD for personal use. But it is not ok to go to a concert where live music is being played and just walk in with out a ticket?

Hmmm...let me guess the morons...I mean posers here that are bitching about the jury award never bought a CD...or have worked as a musician.

But hey I guess it is ok to steal as long as everyone else does it.

Loser!

71.8.2009 22:14

Originally posted by wahwah1:
So lets see...it is OK to download music for free (aka Stealing)and burn to MP3/CD for personal use. But it is not ok to go to a concert where live music is being played and just walk in with out a ticket?

Hmmm...let me guess the morons...I mean posers here that are bitching about the jury award never bought a CD...or have worked as a musician.

But hey I guess it is ok to steal as long as everyone else does it.

Loser!
Are you a musician Signed on by one of the RIAA Lables, was one of your tracks downloaded by this guy.

675,000 USD would take the average person 5 to 6 years to pay off. if every last penny went to pay towards the fine. a bank robber could get off better than that.

use logic before you rant please.

81.8.2009 22:33

It would take the average person way longer than 5-6 years, since the average income is nowhere near 100,000$.. It would take around 25 years using the median income in the US (around 25K) assuming ALL income went to the payments. Not to mention this kid went to Harvard, so he's probably in a mountain of debt already..

91.8.2009 22:43
jony218
Inactive

Quote:
675,000 USD would take the average person 5 to 6 years to pay off. if every last penny went to pay towards the fine. a bank robber could get off better than that.

In europe or canada it might take 5 or 6 years working at minimum wage. In the US we are talking 30/40 years to pay that off. But everyone seems to forget, if the dude had money to buy CD's to begin with he wouldn't have been downloading anything.

In the end its a happy ending, the RIAA doesn't get any money anyway. If they start to garnish his wages he will probably quit his job and go live under a overpass.

101.8.2009 22:47
varnull
Inactive

Quote:
So lets see...it is OK to download music for free (aka Stealing)and burn to MP3/CD for personal use. But it is not ok to go to a concert where live music is being played and just walk in with out a ticket?

Hmmm...let me guess the morons...I mean posers here that are bitching about the jury award never bought a CD...or have worked as a musician.

But hey I guess it is ok to steal as long as everyone else does it.

Loser!
I am a musician not signed to an RIAA vultures company.. they owe me royalties they have collected illegally. They will not pay out unless I sign up to one of their cartel gangster thieving companies.

You can download my music for free on my profile.. hahahaha.. just take it.. it's mine to give away. If you hear it on the radio the RIAA scum (and in the UK the PRS) will have forcibly collected royalties on it even though I have waived them.

Before you go spouting your gob think who might be listening.....

111.8.2009 23:31

Originally posted by wahwah1:
So lets see...it is OK to download music for free (aka Stealing)and burn to MP3/CD for personal use. But it is not ok to go to a concert where live music is being played and just walk in with out a ticket?

Hmmm...let me guess the morons...I mean posers here that are bitching about the jury award never bought a CD...or have worked as a musician.

But hey I guess it is ok to steal as long as everyone else does it.

Loser!
Sharp as an orange.

122.8.2009 0:10
rockabout
Inactive

the record companies are not the boy scouts.
if you bootleg and get cought,guido might show up at your door.
they take it to heart that you would steal from them.
copyright is your protection, provided by congress,for what you create,for someone to make copies of your work is stealing.if they make money from it you loose that money to someone who did nothing more than copy your work.
for an artist,no money,no art
the RIAA has gone too far. i guess they cant catch enough legit bootleggers so they have to scare the fans
dont buy their stuff or steal it. make your owne
johnny

132.8.2009 0:11
llongtheD
Inactive

Quote:
Originally posted by llongtheD:
Yet another shining example of how large corporations and their lobbyists, can influence stupid and corrupt politicians into making these ridiculous laws. We would have to use the term laws loosely however, more like rules that benefit the dirtbags.

Until lobbying is a hanging offense, anarchy is a better option.
Agreed.

142.8.2009 0:17

Quote:
If they start to garnish his wages he will probably quit his job and go live under a overpass.
Or move to Canada.

152.8.2009 0:39

I love how everyone here is blaming the RIAA. How about the stupid lawsuit that was brought by HIS attorneys? The RIAA offered to settle this for a LOT lower price but homeboy thought he'd have his day in court. And then the stupid f**k admits to stealing the music and offering it for download to thousands of people in open court. If I was on the jury I would have voted him guilty too.

162.8.2009 5:07
llongtheD
Inactive

Hey big_poppa,

The RIAA needs to spend more time seeing that quality music gets made. If they didn't put out this "formula" music, where there is one good song on an album, and the rest is filler, there would be no need to sue someone for not buying it. People have had crap shoved in their faces for years. The music is based on market studies now. If you don't believe, look at american idol. I'm not saying there isn't any good music being made anymore, but more often than not, if it doesn't fit the "mold" it would be shoved aside. Because of their money and power, they are one of the few groups that can sue a poor person for these "hypothetical" damages and get away with it. Anyone who can't see this, needs to wake up and smell what they're shoveling.
Just think if they could relax their white knuckle grip on the dollar, and just leave the making of music to the artists again. Call me crazy but I think their profits would spike, and there would be no need for these ridiculous lawsuits. Everyone would benefit.
No one even questions the rights of privacy, or how these corporations obtain the information, to bring these suits. No search warrant, no court order in most cases, and they are able to look at whats on your machine. To me thats an invasion of privacy, but I guess in america our rights are eroding so quickly it probably doesn't matter.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 02 Aug 2009 @ 5:16

172.8.2009 5:36

I think there should be a list of artist he downloaded and those artist should get their cut of this $$$$.

182.8.2009 9:52

Originally posted by llongtheD:
Hey big_poppa,

The RIAA needs to spend more time seeing that quality music gets made. If they didn't put out this "formula" music, where there is one good song on an album, and the rest is filler, there would be no need to sue someone for not buying it. People have had crap shoved in their faces for years. The music is based on market studies now. If you don't believe, look at american idol. I'm not saying there isn't any good music being made anymore, but more often than not, if it doesn't fit the "mold" it would be shoved aside. Because of their money and power, they are one of the few groups that can sue a poor person for these "hypothetical" damages and get away with it. Anyone who can't see this, needs to wake up and smell what they're shoveling.
Just think if they could relax their white knuckle grip on the dollar, and just leave the making of music to the artists again. Call me crazy but I think their profits would spike, and there would be no need for these ridiculous lawsuits. Everyone would benefit.
No one even questions the rights of privacy, or how these corporations obtain the information, to bring these suits. No search warrant, no court order in most cases, and they are able to look at whats on your machine. To me thats an invasion of privacy, but I guess in america our rights are eroding so quickly it probably doesn't matter.
Interesting that the quality of music is not controlled by the RIAA. It is controlled by those who choose to steal music only for one song.

The fact is real simple...if you like it buy it...and if you steal it...you are a thief. Plain and simple.

192.8.2009 11:50

Just another pointlessly vicious act on the road to the present copyright system falling to pieces.

A minor battle won by the RIAA/MPAA gang against one individual in the teeth of billions (12 billion downloads las year apparantly).

I just hope that one day we get to compensate those abused in this unjust and cruel way - and go after those who were responsible for this spiteful idiocy.

202.8.2009 13:47

Guilty or no, could have gotten a lesser fine or no; the fact remains as long as this continues and fines are set to outrageous unconstitutional dollars, then eventually depending on how far this gets out of hand, will result in every loser to these types of crime filing for bankruptcy because they can't or never will be able to afford the millions or even hundred of thousands the RIAA claims it causes in damages. They don't even take into account that maybe the down-loaders that are getting the music from the uploader already *GASP* own the album. But that doesn't matter because they are allowed to fixate any amount they see fit for damages up to a maximum of whatever outrageous amount. So as they keep going after individuals who most of them will be between welfare and lower tax bracket working citizens *maybe the odd middle class*; more and more people will like I said file bankruptcy, and if they thought the economy was shit before, they government obviously can't forsee how bad this outcome could really get; or how ugly.

212.8.2009 14:19

Quote:
Originally posted by llongtheD:
Hey big_poppa,

The RIAA needs to spend more time seeing that quality music gets made. If they didn't put out this "formula" music, where there is one good song on an album, and the rest is filler, there would be no need to sue someone for not buying it. People have had crap shoved in their faces for years. The music is based on market studies now. If you don't believe, look at american idol. I'm not saying there isn't any good music being made anymore, but more often than not, if it doesn't fit the "mold" it would be shoved aside. Because of their money and power, they are one of the few groups that can sue a poor person for these "hypothetical" damages and get away with it. Anyone who can't see this, needs to wake up and smell what they're shoveling.
Just think if they could relax their white knuckle grip on the dollar, and just leave the making of music to the artists again. Call me crazy but I think their profits would spike, and there would be no need for these ridiculous lawsuits. Everyone would benefit.
No one even questions the rights of privacy, or how these corporations obtain the information, to bring these suits. No search warrant, no court order in most cases, and they are able to look at whats on your machine. To me thats an invasion of privacy, but I guess in america our rights are eroding so quickly it probably doesn't matter.
Interesting that the quality of music is not controlled by the RIAA. It is controlled by those who choose to steal music only for one song.

The fact is real simple...if you like it buy it...and if you steal it...you are a thief. Plain and simple.
A corporate RIAA shill if there ever was one.

222.8.2009 14:57

lol at afterdawns main page it has this article
[Joel Tenenbaum fined $675,000 over copyright infringement]
Then right under it is a
Software update for: LimeWire Basic v5.2.13

I find that funny.

(sharing is not a crime!)

232.8.2009 22:02
rockabout
Inactive

i think you guys are missing the point.
the constitution of the united states protects intellectual property.
you cant just go copy and sell something you did not create.
if you do you can go to jail,pay fines.things like that.
write it and you can sell all you can.assign it to somebody to sell for you, whatever.
just because it costs too much or the rest of the music sucks doesnt change the facts.
if i remember correctly they sell singles.
most riaa members dont mind a little sharing
but never allow any resale,ever. none, dont even think about it.
bootlegging of any amount is a big deal.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 02 Aug 2009 @ 22:20

242.8.2009 22:17

Originally posted by rockabout:
i think you guys are missing the point.
the constitution of the united states protects intelectual property.
you cant just go copy and sell something you did not create.
if you do you can go to jail,pay fines.things like that.
write it and you can sell all you can.assign it to somebody to sell for you, whatever.
just because it costs too much or the rest of the music sucks doesnt change tha facts.
if i remember correctly they sell singles.
most riaa members dont mind a little shareing
but never allow any resale,ever. none dont even think about it.
bootlegging of any amount is a big deal.
Yes but, selling for profit and shearing are 2 separate issues, of such amendments(fair use/first sale,ect) have been made to the rules to allow for shearing,even abstract profit(sale of used software/media).Tho through lobbying efforts our individual rights have taken a back step to corporate rights yet again.

I do nto contest the profit stream remaining exclusive to the CP/IP owners however if its shared in non profit settings it should not be illegal.

The modern age has something no other age before it had,even the 70/80s with taping was just a snow flake on a iceberg. We now have electronic/digital communication almost on a scale of mass telepathy(IE trading of thought) that makes the old media houses antiquated and out moded. Its not that they can not change to meet the times and stay relevant rather they buy laws to not have to change and ensure their monopolies conglomerate and become bigger with the cowmen citizen becomes smaller and smaller through more rules that turn them into renters for life.

This is why "mere distribution" should not be a crime of any kind, focus on the profit dirvied from distribution, because that will reduce free sharing far more than steeping beyond bounds and limits to create an artificial absolute rule that's used not for the good of the public or the worlds people but used to as an anal probe to keep them dumb,complacent and fearing..

253.8.2009 14:47

The jury was ordered to find him guilty.

What else do you need to know?

One of the most wealthy and profitable businesses on the planet has 'justice' all bought and paid for.

263.8.2009 14:50

Originally posted by Interestx:
The jury was ordered to find him guilty.

What else do you need to know?

One of the most wealthy and profitable businesses on the planet has 'justice' all bought and paid for.
All the more reason why distribution without profit should be free.

Of corse when have have arrogant ignorant nobles running government they will side with their mentally challenged siblings in business...where the burnt of their take home pay comes from......

273.8.2009 23:12
rockabout
Inactive

zippy
prince did that
give away i think 10m copies of his music which he had assigned to the record company for sale, they worked it out somehow but for someone not in the deal to make access for free copies without some deal is bootlegging-look at it like this
you spend 1m bucks making a cd promoting it,the whole deal,setting it up in stores,radio,web all the toppings,
you sell 1 copy,to one guy,and 10m people have it before you can shut the machine off., what do you do now? how you gonna get that 1m back? if you can aford to play music you are lucky
if you make a living off of it you are blessed!
hard to do it free when it costs so much to produce.

283.8.2009 23:36
rockabout
Inactive

i forgot to ask
why would someone want to distribute something that they made nothing off of or had no gain from anyway?
fair use doesnt mean crash the deal by world wide givaway.
the way they solved with tapes and such was to take a bite of the purchas price of the blank tape.
radio pays a blanket fee
record companies let some things stream and others not
indys sometimes dont care at all
i let my music stream free
but i am old and tired,and the long time village iddiot.
why bother?

294.8.2009 0:16

Originally posted by rockabout:
i forgot to ask
why would someone want to distribute something that they made nothing off of or had no gain from anyway?
fair use doesnt mean crash the deal by world wide givaway.
the way they solved with tapes and such was to take a bite of the purchas price of the blank tape.
radio pays a blanket fee
record companies let some things stream and others not
indys sometimes dont care at all
i let my music stream free
but i am old and tired,and the long time village iddiot.
why bother?
Fair use protects lending of physical media and "distribution" of media that's become difficult to obtain.

And you are missing the point if each person had to pay the tab for shearing stuff (bandwidth/server fees ect) and could not gain money off it unless they had a license you'd remove any site that "makes money" off sharing.

Basically you are limiting "shearing" to either individuals for personal archiving (how they share that data dose not matter as long as no profit is made from it) and organizations that have a license from CP owners.

Sharing data/media/information is the right of the populace, making money from it the right of business(ISP's chagrining for more bandwidth) but specifically CP owners. But CP owners should realize they do not have an absolute lock on distribution if they can not sell it to the people the people will either ignore them and not buy/use it or share it because they either can not afford it or would rather build internet infrastructure though higher internet costs instead of directly feeding the abusive beast of the media industry..

304.8.2009 0:58
rockabout
Inactive

hi im johnny
you folks have some interesting view points
reading them has made me start thinking,which is useually not a good thing,but im knockin some dust off,
i do art and business,i am, capitalistic,humanstic,agnostic of faith,
fair should be my creed.
sometimes it is not.
what would it hurt to give a little more?
probibly not much.
when it gets to the bone,whose bite is it?
how much space between me and that bite am i going to give?
where is the line?
no one should be hungry for their dreams to come true.
few are willing to go so far as to give their lives to this dream of freedom in america so others just like us can do just what we are doing. and for the many who have given it all.
i for one think they deserve a little more support and respect
for their efforts.
crooks are everywhere.
we all have stolen something.
turning children into criminals has never been the answer.
letting criminals go isnt eather
i guess,at least for me,i love to share stuff
justice is good to share.
a little space.
stuff i actually owne.worked for,stuff like that.
in the end i just wish children anywhere didnt have to eat mudd cakes.
but they do.
we have war and hunger and crime and hate all over this world.
what are we really giving and what are we really getting for it
i just wish we were kinder to each other thats all
just a little less dog eat dog
id give anything to get to see this world at peace!
what do you think? could you share that?
whats it worth? why bother? i can see that it aint never gonna work taking anything from sombody and giving it to sombody else
sombody is going to get mad at sombody else. every time
i guess we gotta give it up or fight!i say fight!fight like you fight
for the fun of it!fight like theres no tomorrow fight fight fight to the fight fight hard fight to the death and maybe we will learn to share.

314.8.2009 1:17
rockabout
Inactive

hey zippy
sorry i got excited, it happens to me all the time.
yaknow you might just have the answer.
take the bite from the bandwidth.like the old blank tapes,or cds.
give it to bmi,ascap,sesac,those guys.
for the artists.let the web go free. or so to speak.not quite free
not quite restricted.
and then there are the add people,or the guys who use your stuff to get other peoples attention.
i dont know sounds like a FIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!

324.8.2009 1:49
rockabout
Inactive

check this out
i want everybody to give me a buck for every copy of every song
i write if you like it enough to copy it for yourself and a couple friends.
if it brings people to your place of business split a buck with me
dont use me for some cheap cause or rip-off scam or any negitave waves.
i choose not to be antisocial although their are plenty of reasons to become that way.
all im gonna do is give it away anyway.
but thats my choice.
it broke my heart to see children eating those mudd cakes and i will never forget how badly we have let them down.
all of our efforts should be going to sharing the gift of life to all
and to hell with those greedy mudering basterds.
freedom of choice to give and share should and has saved us before and i sure hope it will save us now.

334.8.2009 1:55

Originally posted by rockabout:
hey zippy
sorry i got excited, it happens to me all the time.
yaknow you might just have the answer.
take the bite from the bandwidth.like the old blank tapes,or cds.
give it to bmi,ascap,sesac,those guys.
for the artists.let the web go free. or so to speak.not quite free
not quite restricted.
and then there are the add people,or the guys who use your stuff to get other peoples attention.
i dont know sounds like a FIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!
Its give and take, they can have a tax on the net 10% or do so to computer hardware/media phones and dvd players and we get to share but not profit in what we share.

Sure the media mafia gets some glorious regulatory BS the government can take 1-5 percent off of to run, but we keep our inherent freedoms free. At a price the powers may be can shallow....
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 04 Aug 2009 @ 1:56

344.8.2009 9:23

Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by llongtheD:
Hey big_poppa,

The RIAA needs to spend more time seeing that quality music gets made. If they didn't put out this "formula" music, where there is one good song on an album, and the rest is filler, there would be no need to sue someone for not buying it. People have had crap shoved in their faces for years. The music is based on market studies now. If you don't believe, look at american idol. I'm not saying there isn't any good music being made anymore, but more often than not, if it doesn't fit the "mold" it would be shoved aside. Because of their money and power, they are one of the few groups that can sue a poor person for these "hypothetical" damages and get away with it. Anyone who can't see this, needs to wake up and smell what they're shoveling.
Just think if they could relax their white knuckle grip on the dollar, and just leave the making of music to the artists again. Call me crazy but I think their profits would spike, and there would be no need for these ridiculous lawsuits. Everyone would benefit.
No one even questions the rights of privacy, or how these corporations obtain the information, to bring these suits. No search warrant, no court order in most cases, and they are able to look at whats on your machine. To me thats an invasion of privacy, but I guess in america our rights are eroding so quickly it probably doesn't matter.
Interesting that the quality of music is not controlled by the RIAA. It is controlled by those who choose to steal music only for one song.

The fact is real simple...if you like it buy it...and if you steal it...you are a thief. Plain and simple.
A corporate RIAA shill if there ever was one.
Go post it on your myspace page along with your mood and how life is so unfair.

354.8.2009 10:02

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by llongtheD:
Hey big_poppa,

The RIAA needs to spend more time seeing that quality music gets made. If they didn't put out this "formula" music, where there is one good song on an album, and the rest is filler, there would be no need to sue someone for not buying it. People have had crap shoved in their faces for years. The music is based on market studies now. If you don't believe, look at american idol. I'm not saying there isn't any good music being made anymore, but more often than not, if it doesn't fit the "mold" it would be shoved aside. Because of their money and power, they are one of the few groups that can sue a poor person for these "hypothetical" damages and get away with it. Anyone who can't see this, needs to wake up and smell what they're shoveling.
Just think if they could relax their white knuckle grip on the dollar, and just leave the making of music to the artists again. Call me crazy but I think their profits would spike, and there would be no need for these ridiculous lawsuits. Everyone would benefit.
No one even questions the rights of privacy, or how these corporations obtain the information, to bring these suits. No search warrant, no court order in most cases, and they are able to look at whats on your machine. To me thats an invasion of privacy, but I guess in america our rights are eroding so quickly it probably doesn't matter.
Interesting that the quality of music is not controlled by the RIAA. It is controlled by those who choose to steal music only for one song.

The fact is real simple...if you like it buy it...and if you steal it...you are a thief. Plain and simple.
A corporate RIAA shill if there ever was one.
Go post it on your myspace page along with your mood and how life is so unfair.
*yawns* you can't steal thought or information.

364.8.2009 12:31

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by llongtheD:
Hey big_poppa,

The RIAA needs to spend more time seeing that quality music gets made. If they didn't put out this "formula" music, where there is one good song on an album, and the rest is filler, there would be no need to sue someone for not buying it. People have had crap shoved in their faces for years. The music is based on market studies now. If you don't believe, look at american idol. I'm not saying there isn't any good music being made anymore, but more often than not, if it doesn't fit the "mold" it would be shoved aside. Because of their money and power, they are one of the few groups that can sue a poor person for these "hypothetical" damages and get away with it. Anyone who can't see this, needs to wake up and smell what they're shoveling.
Just think if they could relax their white knuckle grip on the dollar, and just leave the making of music to the artists again. Call me crazy but I think their profits would spike, and there would be no need for these ridiculous lawsuits. Everyone would benefit.
No one even questions the rights of privacy, or how these corporations obtain the information, to bring these suits. No search warrant, no court order in most cases, and they are able to look at whats on your machine. To me thats an invasion of privacy, but I guess in america our rights are eroding so quickly it probably doesn't matter.
Interesting that the quality of music is not controlled by the RIAA. It is controlled by those who choose to steal music only for one song.

The fact is real simple...if you like it buy it...and if you steal it...you are a thief. Plain and simple.
A corporate RIAA shill if there ever was one.
Go post it on your myspace page along with your mood and how life is so unfair.
*yawns* you can't steal thought or information.
It's too bad that you have neither in that myspace world.

374.8.2009 12:39

Quote:
*yawns* you can't steal thought or information.
It's too bad that you have neither in that myspace world.
Which is why people buy all the crap they advertise. :P

384.8.2009 22:24
llongtheD
Inactive

@
wahwah1

Dang, your are a corporate shill, windsong had you pegged.


If your fish seems sick, put it back in the water.

395.8.2009 9:48

Originally posted by llongtheD:
@
wahwah1

Dang, your are a corporate shill, windsong had you pegged.

Hunh, so I guess in your world where "sharing" is legal...so what I wanted to share your food in your refrigerator...or perhaps your petrol in your car?

So do not give me some lame emo excuse that since everyone is doing it, I can too. Got no spine to man up and work for something?

Until you can find a better solution, it is stealing plain and simple.

405.8.2009 14:58

Originally posted by wahwah1:
Originally posted by llongtheD:
@
wahwah1

Dang, your are a corporate shill, windsong had you pegged.

Hunh, so I guess in your world where "sharing" is legal...so what I wanted to share your food in your refrigerator...or perhaps your petrol in your car?

So do not give me some lame emo excuse that since everyone is doing it, I can too. Got no spine to man up and work for something?

Until you can find a better solution, it is stealing plain and simple.
if i gave you permission to take some food out of my fridge if i gave you permission to funnel gas out of my tank then yes its sharing.

if one is to understand the concept one has to look at the very creation of P2P which by the original design was to take files chop them up into segments and upload them to all the computers in the network.

the concept gets all whacked from there Uploading is considered sharing in P2P. what is being shared is another question.

What big whig RIAA/MPAA have done is created a law that severely limits the use of p2p as a sharing infrastructure, by mandating,fear, and ties into the government.

you probably don't even care, your one of those types that are always right. i used to be one in, in one point of my life.

415.8.2009 15:55
llongtheD
Inactive

Originally posted by wahwah1:
Originally posted by llongtheD:
@
wahwah1

Dang, your are a corporate shill, windsong had you pegged.

Hunh, so I guess in your world where "sharing" is legal...so what I wanted to share your food in your refrigerator...or perhaps your petrol in your car?

So do not give me some lame emo excuse that since everyone is doing it, I can too. Got no spine to man up and work for something?

Until you can find a better solution, it is stealing plain and simple.
Where in any of my posts did I say I stole music or downloaded illeagally? That is a poor assumption that you have made on your own. It is exactly the type of attitude and corporate ideals you represent. The RIAA, a rich and powerful organization, has the attitude that the very people that put them in that position are stealing from them. Its a very paraniod view. Maybe they should change their viewpoint, and start treating the consumer like a customer again, instead of a thief. So why don't you man up and post something worthwhile, instead of accusing everyone of stealing.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 05 Aug 2009 @ 15:56

If your fish seems sick, put it back in the water.

425.8.2009 17:39

Originally posted by llongtheD:
Originally posted by wahwah1:
Originally posted by llongtheD:
@
wahwah1

Dang, your are a corporate shill, windsong had you pegged.

Hunh, so I guess in your world where "sharing" is legal...so what I wanted to share your food in your refrigerator...or perhaps your petrol in your car?

So do not give me some lame emo excuse that since everyone is doing it, I can too. Got no spine to man up and work for something?

Until you can find a better solution, it is stealing plain and simple.
Where in any of my posts did I say I stole music or downloaded illeagally? That is a poor assumption that you have made on your own. It is exactly the type of attitude and corporate ideals you represent. The RIAA, a rich and powerful organization, has the attitude that the very people that put them in that position are stealing from them. Its a very paraniod view. Maybe they should change their viewpoint, and start treating the consumer like a customer again, instead of a thief. So why don't you man up and post something worthwhile, instead of accusing everyone of stealing.
Ahh yes, out of the mouth of babes. So you have never stolen a song? Wow...I am impressed.

Your sad assumptions about being a "shill" whilst parroting remarks by someone else shows how unoriginal your thoughts are.

Who should start treating the consumer like a customer? They are not the sellers or music. The members that are part of the RIAA do so on their own volition. They are protecting the people they serve...record companies not consumers.

So why don't you look into what they do before you go posting another "I'm grumpy" on your myspace page.

435.8.2009 18:50
llongtheD
Inactive

Originally posted by wahwah1:
Originally posted by llongtheD:
Originally posted by wahwah1:
Originally posted by llongtheD:
@
wahwah1

Dang, your are a corporate shill, windsong had you pegged.

Hunh, so I guess in your world where "sharing" is legal...so what I wanted to share your food in your refrigerator...or perhaps your petrol in your car?

So do not give me some lame emo excuse that since everyone is doing it, I can too. Got no spine to man up and work for something?

Until you can find a better solution, it is stealing plain and simple.
Where in any of my posts did I say I stole music or downloaded illeagally? That is a poor assumption that you have made on your own. It is exactly the type of attitude and corporate ideals you represent. The RIAA, a rich and powerful organization, has the attitude that the very people that put them in that position are stealing from them. Its a very paraniod view. Maybe they should change their viewpoint, and start treating the consumer like a customer again, instead of a thief. So why don't you man up and post something worthwhile, instead of accusing everyone of stealing.
Ahh yes, out of the mouth of babes. So you have never stolen a song? Wow...I am impressed.

Your sad assumptions about being a "shill" whilst parroting remarks by someone else shows how unoriginal your thoughts are.

Who should start treating the consumer like a customer? They are not the sellers or music. The members that are part of the RIAA do so on their own volition. They are protecting the people they serve...record companies not consumers.

So why don't you look into what they do before you go posting another "I'm grumpy" on your myspace page.
Yet another uninformed and idiotic post by the corporate shill. You can continue your rants about how much you support the RIAA with someone else in this thread. I'm done responding to a close minded person like yourself. Oh yeah, and I didn't assume you were a shill, someone else in the thread did, then you opened your mouth and proved it.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 05 Aug 2009 @ 18:52

If your fish seems sick, put it back in the water.

445.8.2009 19:09

Originally posted by llongtheD:
Originally posted by wahwah1:
Originally posted by llongtheD:
Originally posted by wahwah1:
Originally posted by llongtheD:
@
wahwah1

Dang, your are a corporate shill, windsong had you pegged.

Hunh, so I guess in your world where "sharing" is legal...so what I wanted to share your food in your refrigerator...or perhaps your petrol in your car?

So do not give me some lame emo excuse that since everyone is doing it, I can too. Got no spine to man up and work for something?

Until you can find a better solution, it is stealing plain and simple.
Where in any of my posts did I say I stole music or downloaded illeagally? That is a poor assumption that you have made on your own. It is exactly the type of attitude and corporate ideals you represent. The RIAA, a rich and powerful organization, has the attitude that the very people that put them in that position are stealing from them. Its a very paraniod view. Maybe they should change their viewpoint, and start treating the consumer like a customer again, instead of a thief. So why don't you man up and post something worthwhile, instead of accusing everyone of stealing.
Ahh yes, out of the mouth of babes. So you have never stolen a song? Wow...I am impressed.

Your sad assumptions about being a "shill" whilst parroting remarks by someone else shows how unoriginal your thoughts are.

Who should start treating the consumer like a customer? They are not the sellers or music. The members that are part of the RIAA do so on their own volition. They are protecting the people they serve...record companies not consumers.

So why don't you look into what they do before you go posting another "I'm grumpy" on your myspace page.
Yet another uninformed and idiotic post by the corporate shill. You can continue your rants about how much you support the RIAA with someone else in this thread. I'm done responding to a close minded person like yourself. Oh yeah, and I didn't assume you were a shill, someone else in the thread did, then you opened your mouth and proved it.
Where did I say "I support RIAA". Sad assumption based on someone that probably gets his/her info from a myspace page.

It is a crime...plain and simple. There is a great Chinese saying that fits..."To scare the monkey, you kill the chicken" I bet you all those emo's out there will be thinking twice before they start uploading music because they want to "share"

455.8.2009 21:14
llongtheD
Inactive

@wahwah,
I know I said I wouldn't respond, but your last post was hilarious.
To scare the monkey, you kill the chicken!? LOL.
Translation, if they don't buy it, sue them into bankruptcy. So you support the RIAA's fear and intimidation tactics? I won't make any assumptions, its a question. There is one thing that is for certain, the RIAA's tactics have made them look evil in the public eye. Not to you I am aware, but you are in the minority.
I'm also not sure where you come up with these my space references, I don't even have an account, you obviously do. I guess that is another child like attempt to discredit someone who can actually think for themselves, instead of being led around like a sheep by the RIAA's propoganda.


If your fish seems sick, put it back in the water.

465.8.2009 22:43

Originally posted by llongtheD:
@wahwah,
I know I said I wouldn't respond, but your last post was hilarious.
To scare the monkey, you kill the chicken!? LOL.
Translation, if they don't buy it, sue them into bankruptcy. So you support the RIAA's fear and intimidation tactics? I won't make any assumptions, its a question. There is one thing that is for certain, the RIAA's tactics have made them look evil in the public eye. Not to you I am aware, but you are in the minority.
I'm also not sure where you come up with these my space references, I don't even have an account, you obviously do. I guess that is another child like attempt to discredit someone who can actually think for themselves, instead of being led around like a sheep by the RIAA's propoganda.
Why waist your time, there are more productive things for you to do like steal the latest copy of your favorite bands album, amiright.

475.8.2009 23:28
llongtheD
Inactive

Originally posted by DXR88:
Originally posted by llongtheD:
@wahwah,
I know I said I wouldn't respond, but your last post was hilarious.
To scare the monkey, you kill the chicken!? LOL.
Translation, if they don't buy it, sue them into bankruptcy. So you support the RIAA's fear and intimidation tactics? I won't make any assumptions, its a question. There is one thing that is for certain, the RIAA's tactics have made them look evil in the public eye. Not to you I am aware, but you are in the minority.
I'm also not sure where you come up with these my space references, I don't even have an account, you obviously do. I guess that is another child like attempt to discredit someone who can actually think for themselves, instead of being led around like a sheep by the RIAA's propoganda.
Why waist your time, there are more productive things for you to do like steal the latest copy of your favorite bands album, amiright.
Your absolutely right DRX88,
enough said.

If your fish seems sick, put it back in the water.

486.8.2009 8:20

Originally posted by DXR88:
Originally posted by llongtheD:
@wahwah,
I know I said I wouldn't respond, but your last post was hilarious.
To scare the monkey, you kill the chicken!? LOL.
Translation, if they don't buy it, sue them into bankruptcy. So you support the RIAA's fear and intimidation tactics? I won't make any assumptions, its a question. There is one thing that is for certain, the RIAA's tactics have made them look evil in the public eye. Not to you I am aware, but you are in the minority.
I'm also not sure where you come up with these my space references, I don't even have an account, you obviously do. I guess that is another child like attempt to discredit someone who can actually think for themselves, instead of being led around like a sheep by the RIAA's propoganda.
Why waist your time, there are more productive things for you to do like steal the latest copy of your favorite bands album, amiright.
Waist...hmmm...did you fail english as well as ethics classes. What is the mood today on your myspace page...giddy.

Is your last statement a question or a statement...or both? I am not so sure that with your limited knowledge of anything but your self centered world that you can tell the difference much less phrase anything into a logical argument.

What did the RIAA do to you, DRM your Britney albums so where you cant share it on date night with your other panty waste friends?

496.8.2009 8:23
7sons
Inactive

was tenenbaum hired by the riaa to take the fall? was he paid front money for the FINE?

506.8.2009 17:41
7sons
Inactive

Originally posted by wahwah1:
Originally posted by DXR88:
Originally posted by llongtheD:
@wahwah,
I know I said I wouldn't respond, but your last post was hilarious.
To scare the monkey, you kill the chicken!? LOL.
Translation, if they don't buy it, sue them into bankruptcy. So you support the RIAA's fear and intimidation tactics? I won't make any assumptions, its a question. There is one thing that is for certain, the RIAA's tactics have made them look evil in the public eye. Not to you I am aware, but you are in the minority.
I'm also not sure where you come up with these my space references, I don't even have an account, you obviously do. I guess that is another child like attempt to discredit someone who can actually think for themselves, instead of being led around like a sheep by the RIAA's propoganda.
Why waist your time, there are more productive things for you to do like steal the latest copy of your favorite bands album, amiright.
Waist...hmmm...did you fail english as well as ethics classes. What is the mood today on your myspace page...giddy.

Is your last statement a question or a statement...or both? I am not so sure that with your limited knowledge of anything but your self centered world that you can tell the difference much less phrase anything into a logical argument.

What did the RIAA do to you, DRM your Britney albums so where you cant share it on date night with your other panty waste friends?

516.8.2009 17:47
7sons
Inactive

LET ME POSE A QUESTION TO YOU. IF I AM AT YOUR HOUSE LISTENING TO YOUR MUSIC THAT YOU LEGALLY BOUGHT OR DOWNLOADED, AND I LIKED SOME
TRACKS, WOULD YOU BURN ME A COPY OF THAT MUSIC? IF YOUR ANSWER IS NO,
YOU'RE A LIAR!!! EVERYONE DOES IT FOR THEIR FRIENDS. P2P IS JUST THIS IN AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE!

526.8.2009 21:34

Let's knock off the attitudes and insults.
If you can't manage that than move along elsewhere on the net.
And no ALL caps posts - try moving your pinky to the left and turning the caps lock OFF.




Forum Rules
Do this before posting
Do not click this link...

536.8.2009 21:39
varnull
Inactive

I give my music away.. that which I own anyway.. that is only about 20% of my total output over the years.. some of these cartel companies still think they own my work even though it sits there unavailable because they don't consider it profitable enough FOR THEM... That means I can't let you have it without getting sued for releasing MY WORK for no profit. To get it back will cost me a small fortune.. yet it's my work and my property in the long run. I own the IP and I own the copyright.. it's MY WORK.. not theirs and the way I see it is this.. IF they have discontinued it because they don't see millions in profits for them then why shouldn't I be allowed to change the licensing to copyleft and just give it away?

547.8.2009 11:49
7sons
Inactive

sorry, not intentional. won't happen again

557.8.2009 13:12

Originally posted by varnull:
I give my music away.. that which I own anyway.. that is only about 20% of my total output over the years.. some of these cartel companies still think they own my work even though it sits there unavailable because they don't consider it profitable enough FOR THEM... That means I can't let you have it without getting sued for releasing MY WORK for no profit. To get it back will cost me a small fortune.. yet it's my work and my property in the long run. I own the IP and I own the copyright.. it's MY WORK.. not theirs and the way I see it is this.. IF they have discontinued it because they don't see millions in profits for them then why shouldn't I be allowed to change the licensing to copyleft and just give it away?
Did the RIAA or record companies come put a gun to your head when you wanted to make money off your recordings?

I do see the POV in burning a copy of songs whilst playing for someone in the house...but when it comes to the blatant misuse of this via P2P that is where the line is drawn.

How many copies do you think make into hands of people that sell these for profits in China, India, etc?

567.8.2009 13:21

Originally posted by wahwah1:
Originally posted by varnull:
I give my music away.. that which I own anyway.. that is only about 20% of my total output over the years.. some of these cartel companies still think they own my work even though it sits there unavailable because they don't consider it profitable enough FOR THEM... That means I can't let you have it without getting sued for releasing MY WORK for no profit. To get it back will cost me a small fortune.. yet it's my work and my property in the long run. I own the IP and I own the copyright.. it's MY WORK.. not theirs and the way I see it is this.. IF they have discontinued it because they don't see millions in profits for them then why shouldn't I be allowed to change the licensing to copyleft and just give it away?
Did the RIAA or record companies come put a gun to your head when you wanted to make money off your recordings?

I do see the POV in burning a copy of songs whilst playing for someone in the house...but when it comes to the blatant misuse of this via P2P that is where the line is drawn.

How many copies do you think make into hands of people that sell these for profits in China, India, etc?
The only blatant misuse of file shearing is when people are making money off it.

Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

---
Check out my crappy creations
http://zippydsmlee.deviantart.com/

577.8.2009 17:54

Originally posted by varnull:
I give my music away.. that which I own anyway.. that is only about 20% of my total output over the years.. some of these cartel companies still think they own my work even though it sits there unavailable because they don't consider it profitable enough FOR THEM... That means I can't let you have it without getting sued for releasing MY WORK for no profit. To get it back will cost me a small fortune.. yet it's my work and my property in the long run. I own the IP and I own the copyright.. it's MY WORK.. not theirs and the way I see it is this.. IF they have discontinued it because they don't see millions in profits for them then why shouldn't I be allowed to change the licensing to copyleft and just give it away?
Hey varnull I dont understand whats happening with your music and the rights to it matey. Could you explain please, cause I have written a few songs and plan to get them registered to me so I can release them and I need a little help. Cheers, joey

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive