|
Joel Tenenbaum must pay RIAA $675,000
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 25 August, 2012
Joel Tenenbaum has lost another appeal this week, and must pay the RIAA $675,000 in statutory damages.
The new ruling upheld the original jury trial verdict from back in 2009.
At one point during the trial, which has taken almost half a decade, the fine was reduced to just $27,500, but the 1st Circuit Court of Appeal reinstated the original verdict in 2011. The Supreme Court declined ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
|
Interestx
Senior Member
|
25. August 2012 @ 14:58 |
Link to this message
|
Hooray!
The sick & twisted b**tards of the RIAA got the courts to ruin someone's life out of sheer spite & vindictiveness.
That'll make a big deal of difference.
Not.
(hopefully if the other story about their funding being cut is true this is their last hurrah before sinking to a deserved & reviled ignominy)
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 25. August 2012 @ 15:02
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
25. August 2012 @ 15:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
If I were in Tenenbaum's shoes I wouldn't show any remorse either. The punishment is just plain excessive! $22,500 per infringement... excessive! Then to turn around & hammer him with the full on $675,000 after the appeal? Isn't that like putting you to death after you have been cleared of a murder trial, say after the civil suit?
I call the 80 year old bastard judge on abuse of power is what I call! Somebody payed his ass off. He ain't buying his way into heaven that's for sure because what he pulled ain't justice.
No, to say our legal system needs a douching is far more than an understatement. A fire truck powered water bazooka through a rodents ass wonder douching might start to touch on the cleansing our system needs right about now.
|
|
JST1946
Senior Member
|
25. August 2012 @ 17:16 |
Link to this message
|
Rya Zobel is a she,not that it really matters.I doubt if the RIAA will be around nuch longer if they lose all their funding.
20 Year U.S.Army Veteran.Vietnam 1969-1972 101st Abn.Div.
|
|
joebloe12
Junior Member
|
25. August 2012 @ 18:43 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well here's to HOPING those scumbags lose any funding they have left!
I hope they all get in the unemployment line when their job is over and nobody gives them another job...they would deserve it!
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 25. August 2012 @ 18:43
|
|
xnonsuchx
Senior Member
|
25. August 2012 @ 20:53 |
Link to this message
|
|
I bet he wishes he accepted the $27,500 penalty now. Large fines are supposed to act as a deterrent. Maybe re-instating the original damages is just punishment for 'wasting' the courts' time w/ appeals. Don't do the crime if you can't pay the fine(s).
|
Member
|
25. August 2012 @ 21:28 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by xnonsuchx:
I bet he wishes he accepted the $27,500 penalty now. Large fines are supposed to act as a deterrent. Maybe re-instating the original damages is just punishment for 'wasting' the courts' time w/ appeals. Don't do the crime if you can't pay the fine(s).
I agree, however, I have a hard time supporting a law that is disproportionally applied. Millions of people illegally download media, but somehow this one guy became the scapegoat for the RIAA.
|
|
Interestx
Senior Member
|
25. August 2012 @ 22:06 |
Link to this message
|
The fines are so out of any proportion it just makes the whole thing laughable.
Downloading and then being courteous enought to upload a copy or two of a CD or DVD available new on Amazon for £/$5 does not suddenly make it 'worth' many tens of thousands.
It's stupid, totally vindictive & utterly pointless and those doing it ought to be deeply ashamed they are just destroying someone's life for no sensible or valid reason whatsoever.
|
|
xnonsuchx
Senior Member
|
26. August 2012 @ 02:00 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Azuran:
Originally posted by xnonsuchx:
I bet he wishes he accepted the $27,500 penalty now. Large fines are supposed to act as a deterrent. Maybe re-instating the original damages is just punishment for 'wasting' the courts' time w/ appeals. Don't do the crime if you can't pay the fine(s).
I agree, however, I have a hard time supporting a law that is disproportionally applied. Millions of people illegally download media, but somehow this one guy became the scapegoat for the RIAA.
It just makes sense for them to go after 'habitual' infringers than go after every instance of infringement they find. They likely hope that going after larger sharers that more casual ones might be afraid to do so. The courts are also more likely to allow suits against such offenders over casual ones that may not have even been intentional.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
26. August 2012 @ 03:03 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by xnonsuchx:
Originally posted by Azuran:
Originally posted by xnonsuchx:
I bet he wishes he accepted the $27,500 penalty now. Large fines are supposed to act as a deterrent. Maybe re-instating the original damages is just punishment for 'wasting' the courts' time w/ appeals. Don't do the crime if you can't pay the fine(s).
I agree, however, I have a hard time supporting a law that is disproportionally applied. Millions of people illegally download media, but somehow this one guy became the scapegoat for the RIAA.
It just makes sense for them to go after 'habitual' infringers than go after every instance of infringement they find. They likely hope that going after larger sharers that more casual ones might be afraid to do so. The courts are also more likely to allow suits against such offenders over casual ones that may not have even been intentional.
It was 30 files, how is that 'habitual'? The really screwed up thing is that it was all at once, and there seems to be no separation for damage level.
Imagine if all theft was considered equal...stealing a penny being the same thing as stealing the Constitution. Now imagine someone stole a small bag of M&M's, and was charged for 30 counts of theft, one for each candy piece. That's pretty much what we are dealing with here...and the judge is fine with it because the punishment applied to each of the 30 candies is 15% of the maximum, a maximum intended for people who steal the constitution.
I hope Joel doesn't pay them a dime, I hope he skips the country and leaves them with nothing but huge lawyer bills...he could have paid the lower (but still excessive) penalty...there is no way he can pay $675K.
|
Senior Member
|
26. August 2012 @ 03:59 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by xnonsuchx:
I bet he wishes he accepted the $27,500 penalty now. Large fines are supposed to act as a deterrent. Maybe re-instating the original damages is just punishment for 'wasting' the courts' time w/ appeals. Don't do the crime if you can't pay the fine(s).
he could just pay a low fee like $5 a week for the rest of his life depending on his circumstances.
custom built gaming pc from early 2010,ps2 with 15 games all original,ps3 500gbs with 5 games all original,yamaha amp and 5.1channel surround sound speakers,46inch sony lcd smart tv.
|
|
xtago
Senior Member
|
26. August 2012 @ 06:29 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by xnonsuchx:
I bet he wishes he accepted the $27,500 penalty now. Large fines are supposed to act as a deterrent. Maybe re-instating the original damages is just punishment for 'wasting' the courts' time w/ appeals. Don't do the crime if you can't pay the fine(s).
Never would have happened as the RIAA said they were going to appeal that result.
They generally want people to be charged with billions and then work out a side deal that say $10,000 to you have to directly pay them.
That other chick got the same treatment but she is bankrupt and only pays the RIAA $1 a week or day and she would ever talk to them so they cut a side deal and so the RIAA look like utter dicks as they can't alter the amount, and will probably see $2000 at most of that amount.
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
26. August 2012 @ 11:36 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by JST1946:
Rya Zobel is a she,not that it really matters.
After enough alcohol I forget to gender the sheep myself...
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 26. August 2012 @ 11:42
|
|
numscull
Junior Member
|
27. August 2012 @ 12:27 |
Link to this message
|
The RIAA probably owes their lawyers more than $675,000 for taking the case to court for five years.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 28. August 2012 @ 19:28
|
|
pmshah
Member
|
1. September 2012 @ 01:36 |
Link to this message
|
How much did the judge in case get towards re-election campaign contribution from RIAA ?
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
3. September 2012 @ 11:34 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by pmshah:
How much did the judge in case get towards re-election campaign contribution from RIAA ?
I think he got a new gazebo in his back yard that has a hot tub & plush seating covered by human scrotums.
|
