File Sharing Student Sued

Macro · 6 Jan 2010 at 18:18

scott212 said:
That's the reason for the fine then.

If you were caught for only downloading (but not sharing/reuploading) 1000 songs then surely it is logical that you only pay back whatever the market value of a legal alternative would be, so say £900 basing the average song is between £0.79 and £0.99 on iTunes. There's no way they could justify thousands a song unless you reuploaded/shared it and other people benefited from you doing so.

No because then there would be no deterrent or punishment for illegal downloading

HangTime · 6 Jan 2010 at 18:19

Would be interesting to learn exactly what he did - was he really just downloading as that article suggests, or was he uploading as well as happens with a lot of 'file sharing' software?

Glaucus · 6 Jan 2010 at 18:41

HangTime said:
Would be interesting to learn exactly what he did - was he really just downloading as that article suggests, or was he uploading as well as happens with a lot of 'file sharing' software?

Admitted to uploading and copying more than 800 songs. He has admitted all of it, but is fighting it on morale grounds. Utter fail by a stupid person.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8177285.stm

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 wilfu

On the stand, Mr Tenenbaum admitted that he had downloaded more than 800 songs since 1999.

"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.

gambitt · 6 Jan 2010 at 18:51

I wonder if he named all of those 800 songs for them. He could've been mistaken and they were actually songs performed by local bands who freely distribute their music and therefore not subject to copyright laws.

fendi · 6 Jan 2010 at 19:13

Athanor said:
Although his trial focused on 30 tracks, Mr Tenebaum admitted downloading more than 800 songs since 1999.

800 tracks over 10 years is pretty lame. wonder if he is on dialup.

sniffy · 6 Jan 2010 at 19:59

Can someone please clarify the laws in the UK? My understanding is that you can't share data (I.E. seed a torrent, upload stuff to RS etc) but it's perfectly legal to just download the data (I.E. from a HTTP server). Is that correct?

buckeejit · 6 Jan 2010 at 20:28

I read the subject as 'File Sharing Student Shed'

buckeejit · 6 Jan 2010 at 20:29

sniffy said:
Can someone please clarify the laws in the UK? My understanding is that you can't share data (I.E. seed a torrent, upload stuff to RS etc) but it's perfectly legal to just download the data (I.E. from a HTTP server). Is that correct?

nope, not correct.

apeZ · 6 Jan 2010 at 20:38

sniffy said:
Can someone please clarify the laws in the UK? My understanding is that you can't share data (I.E. seed a torrent, upload stuff to RS etc) but it's perfectly legal to just download the data (I.E. from a HTTP server). Is that correct?

I don't think it is legal, but the punishments aren't as severe. Also, I think ISPs only tend to chase fileSHARERS as opposed to those who download direct from servers.

fini · 6 Jan 2010 at 20:46

AcidHell2 seems to have been doing some homework, which makes my usual point of coming in to threads dealing with copyright infringement and adding some legal sense completely hijacked

I'll just add that almost all academic studies show that p2p actually increases music sales rather than decreasing them.

bigredshark · 6 Jan 2010 at 20:52

Vesta_Man said:
SSL Encrypted Newsgroups f.t.w

Until they get raided, their server's seized and the logs inspected.

But yes, here we go again, my view on this subject are available in multiple other threads and I won't go over them again in detail here, but to summarise - good.

Ziggy · 6 Jan 2010 at 20:53

I thought we were beyond an eye for an eye...

Even if he deprived them of £421,000 (which he didn't) he should not be made to pay £421,000, because that would destroy his life; stealing that much from a megacorp does not do the same damage.

fini · 6 Jan 2010 at 20:55

bigredshark said:
Until they get raided, their server's seized and the logs inspected.

Except that:
a) they don't keep logs; and
b) no usenet provider has ever been raided (except for kiddy porn)

Fantom · 6 Jan 2010 at 20:56

fini said:
I'll just add that almost all academic studies show that p2p actually increases music sales rather than decreasing them.

Coming from a sceptical point of view would these studies be biased? would be interesting but Id like to see the record companies performing these studies and admitting that p2p increases record sales.

fini · 6 Jan 2010 at 21:02

Fantom, that's why I said almost all. There have been a few studies that have been funded by the record companies that have come to the conclusion that p2p is a bad thing, but that, pretty much, is all. Academic studies concluding that p2p increases sales include those done by Stanford and one commissioned by the government of Canada .

Inazuma · 6 Jan 2010 at 21:11

fini said:
I'll just add that almost all academic studies show that p2p actually increases music sales rather than decreasing them.

citation?

bigredshark · 6 Jan 2010 at 21:18

fini said:
Except that:
a) they don't keep logs; and
b) no usenet provider has ever been raided (except for kiddy porn)

Really? Really really? They don't keep firewall logs for security audits? The systems don't record connections as is the default behaviour of virtually every app out there? How sure are you there's nothing at all? I mean we don't officially log anything but there's fragments floating about in individual log files you could piece together to get a fair idea of who accesses what and when. So are you sure they actively purge every log file regularly?

While none have yet been raided, that'll change as more people start to use them, US sites may have some safe harbour protection (which is of course dependant on honouring takedown notices if they get them) but most countries have no equivalent.

And in several previous cases the FBI have acted (or actually been) dumb about what exactly they're entitled to seize in raids and what constitutes a crime.

fini · 6 Jan 2010 at 21:18

Inazuma said:
citation?

I've got an entire 15,000 word Masters level dissertation on the point if you're that interested...

fini · 6 Jan 2010 at 21:21

bigredshark said:
Really? Really really? They don't keep firewall logs for security audits?

That is what they claim and if it's not true then you'd be able to sue them for breach of contract - so you'd still be covered.

bigredshark said:
While none have yet been raided, that'll change as more people start to use them, US sites may have some safe harbour protection (which is of course dependant on honouring takedown notices if they get them) but most countries have no equivalent.

Actually most countries now do and many of those that do not do not simply because they have even laxer IP laws pretty much relying on TRIPs and going no further.

bigredshark said:
And in several previous cases the FBI have acted (or actually been) dumb about what exactly they're entitled to seize in raids and what constitutes a crime.

This is true, but they can't then use the data in cases because it was obtained improperly.

Tefal · 6 Jan 2010 at 21:30

sniffy said:
Can someone please clarify the laws in the UK? My understanding is that you can't share data (I.E. seed a torrent, upload stuff to RS etc) but it's perfectly legal to just download the data (I.E. from a HTTP server). Is that correct?

It's not legal but the fine wouldn't cover the cost of investigation so they don't bothert.