Our last tech newscast covering the RIAA's suing spree involved charging a Minnesotan mother a whoppin' $1.92 million for 24 songs. This week, another bites the dust, but this time in the form of Joel Tenenbaum, a 25-year-old Boston University graduate student.
The results aren't pretty. After losing his court battle, he has been charged for copyright infringement of 24 songs (costing $22,500 each) that were shared on Kazaa by him back in 2004. Talk about having your past coming back to bite you in the ass.
We've said it before and we'll say it again - We really don't feel suing your customers is a great idea, RIAA. It doesn't even sound good on paper. Unless you enjoy going into people's garbage and then pinning them for say.. illegal dumping of electronics. Ah-ha! An old Sony Walkman. Gotcha!
There must be better ways out there to encourage ethical behavior that can benefit both parties in the long run. Cash for Clunkers, despite its criticisms, is a great example of providing healthy alternatives that provide benefits for both the customer and the environment. The Kindle's attempt to reinvent the book and lessening paper waste is another good one. Granted they're no where near relevant to the issue at hand, neither is gunning after the people who are suppose to be providing your main source of income.
But seriously folks, stop using Kazaa, Limewire, and old versions of Napster. It ain't worth it!
(Via Electronic House)
If people are downloading it from these sites, they are not paying for it so they are not "customers". This guy doesn't do a good job of defending himself either.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2009/08/04/am.tenenbaum.music.fine.cnn
view modernguy's profile
What ever happened to having to prove the loss? 30 songs at $675,000 would mean (if anyone still actually believes the piracy costs the record industry money argument) that each song should have been downloaded by 22,500 people (assuming the industry-standard of ~$1 per song) for this to be justifiable. Of course that's complete BS. Awards should not be greater than the loss and that loss should be proven.
view charmac's profile