US file-sharer gets $700,000 fine.

[iPhantom]

A US student has been ordered to pay $675,000 (£404,000) to four record labels for breaking copyright laws after sharing music online.

The Boston University student, Joel Tenenbaum, had admitted in court that he had downloaded and distributed 30 songs at issue in the case.

It is the second such case to go to trial in the US.

In the first case, a woman in Minneapolis was ordered to pay $1.92m for sharing 24 songs.

On Friday, the jury ordered Mr Tenebaum to pay $22,500 for each infringement. The maximum that he could have been fined was $4.5m.

Following the ruling, he said he was glad the fine had not been in the millions.

"That to me sends a message of 'We considered your side with some legitimacy'," he said, according to the Associated Press news agency.

But his lawyer said the verdict was not fair and that he planned to appeal.

'Loved technology'

Mr Tenenbaum used a computer at his parents' home and at his college to download and distribute digital files.

Prosecutors working on behalf of the record labels focused on 30 shared songs.

Under US law, the recording companies are entitled to $750 to $30,000 per infringement.

However, the jury can raise the amount to $150,000 per track if it finds the infringements were wilful - a matter that they will debate now that the judge has ruled Mr Tenenbaum violated copyright laws.

In the Minnesota case, the jury awarded $80,000 per song.

On the stand, Mr Tenenbaum admitted that he had downloaded more than 800 songs since 1999 and that he had lied in pre-trial proceedings when he suggested that other family members of friends may have been responsible for downloading songs to his computer.

"I used the computer. I uploaded, I downloaded music," he told the court under questioning from his own lawyer, Charles Nesson.

He said he had used Napster and then Kazaa to download the files.

"It was like this giant library in front of you," he said.

In opening remarks on Tuesday, Mr Tenenbaum's lawyer said he "was a kid who did what kids do and loved technology and loved music".

Recording companies had been slow to adapt to the internet, he added.

But prosecutors argued that file-sharers take a significant toll on the revenues for artists and others involved in music

'Got off easy'

The recording industry has recently changed its tactics in file-sharing cases, preferring to settle quickly for much smaller amounts.

However, cases such as those against Mr Tenenbaum, which were already filed, are proceeding to trial.

The four recording labels involved in the case are subsidiaries of Universal Music, Warner Music and Sony.

Kevin Cullen of the Boston Globe said Mr Tenenbaum had "got off easy" compared to the Minnesota case.

"I went through the song list of what he was actually convicted of downloading and my favourite one was Beck's Loser," he told BBC News.

It's the second trial RIAA ruins the life of someone. How is a student's supposed to pay those ridiculous fines? They ruined his whole life for something all teenagers do on a daily basis.

RIAA is greedy as hell, also known for their illegal way of shutting down websites like TPB (judge in the TPB trial had a copyright company himself, go figure), and how they break privacy of people to track down what they download.

RIAA has been sued for these actions before: RIAA Sued for Fraud, Abuse and Legal Sham | TorrentFreak

Not to mention this outrageous thing they did: Woman Who Owned No Computer, But Got Sued By The RIAA, 'Settles' | Techdirt

Aren't they a bunch of greedy hypocrites?

[Megabyte117]

It's just another scapegoat. Of course the fine is ridiculously large, still nothing to what that other lady received, but this is really too much.

[Tenchu]

This is stupid. If you steal music physically (shoplifting from the CD store) a first time offender will get off with a slap on the wrist. How can they jack it up so much for electronic theft?

[iPhantom]

Originally Posted by Tenchu

This is stupid. If you steal music physically (shoplifting from the CD store) a first time offender will get off with a slap on the wrist. How can they jack it up so much for electronic theft?

They're greeds, $22,500 for a song.

[MMM]

If you can't do the time, then don't do the crime.

[Koir]

Originally Posted by MMM

If you can't do the time, then don't do the crime.

You do realize that such a dismissive, high-horse response will serve only to ignite a flame war, right?

[alanX]

Originally Posted by Koir

You do realize that such a dismissive, high-horse response will serve only to ignite a flame war, right?

But it's true though...
So why beat around the bush?

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Koir

You do realize that such a dismissive, high-horse response will serve only to ignite a flame war, right?

We all know what the penalties for distributing MP3s on the Internet are. We also know the chances of actually getting prosecuted are very small. Regardless, we can't act surprised when it happens. It is a reminder that it could happen to anyone, and the reason the penalties are so high is to try and get people to stop. If it were a dollar a song pr even 10 dollars a song, it would actually encourage more illegal file-sharing.

I feel sympathy for the guy, but it isn't like he is an innocent bystander.

[iPhantom]

Originally Posted by MMM

If you can't do the time, then don't do the crime.

Don't tell me you've never torrented a mp3 in your life. RIAA can sue you 22,000$ just for that. I actually think they do it because they want moar money. Look at the ridiculous case of the woman with no computer.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by iPhantom

Don't tell me you've never torrented a mp3 in your life. RIAA can sue you 22,000$ just for that. I actually think they do it because they want moar money. Look at the ridiculous case of the woman with no computer.

I am just offering up the alternate perspective that if you are going to engage in illegal activities, and you know what the penalties are, one shouldn't be surprised when they get a knock on the door. Every time you download something you are taking a gamble.