Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Awarded $675,000 In Tenenbaum Trial
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The jury awarded the record company plaintiffs $675,000 in the Boston trial defended by Prof. Charles Nesson, SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum. I was not surprised, since exactly none of the central issues ever even came up in this trial. The judge had instructed the jurors that Mr. Tenenbaum was liable, and that their only task was to come up with a verdict that was more than $22,500 and less than $4.5 million. According to the judge, her reason for doing so was that, when on the stand, the defendant was asked if he admitted liability, and he said 'yes.' The lawyers among you will know that that was a totally improper question, and that the Court should not have even allowed it, much less based her holding upon the answer to it."
And if you were living in your dumb-ass libertarian paradise, you'd be in debtors prison now.
Says who? "The Congress shall have Power To ... To establish ... uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"
Libertarianism does not require the support of debtor prison. If someone is unable to pay his or her debts then it's a matter for the courts. Bankruptcy has been a part of our legal system since the beginning. Debt forgiveness goes back further than that.
goddamn you're stupid
I love western Canada. There, are you happy now?
Yeah, well your head flaps when you talk! So there!
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
If you're spending money on healthcare insurance anyway why do you care? Either way you're spending the money so that's not a valid argument.
Because I get to choose which insurance company I do business with. Because I can walk away from them anytime I wish. Because if I miss a payment with them they don't have the power to take me out of my house at gunpoint and throw me in jail.
You can't even argue on price because with socialised healthcare you're cutting out the insurance companies meaning more money actually gets spent on/in hospitals rather then ending on up in insurers pockets.
No, it means more money will get on spent on the hospitals in the district of whichever Congress-critter has the most seniority on the appropriations committee. It means more money will get on spent on hospitals that picked the right horse back in November when they were writing campaign contribution checks.
I fail to see why you're have such a problem with this but happily have a socialised police force and fire service
Actually, around these parts the fire service is a volunteer one. The police I don't have a problem with because as I said earlier it is a proper role for Government to resolve disputes between the citizenry and stop my neighbor from murdering me. I don't think running the health care system is a proper role for the Government. It's going to wind up being held hostage to special interests and political considerations.
Health care is a basic human right however you're treating it as luxury for only those that can afford it?
What of my basic human right to enjoy the fruits of my own labor? I make ~$32,000 and my combined tax burden (federal/FICA/state/local/school/gasoline/sales/etc) is close to 45% of my income. That means I'm working for someone else 18 hours a week. Why should I even continue to bother? I'd have almost the same standard of living if I quit my job and started mooching off the system like the rest of the bottom feeders.
Every single thing the Government touches eventually becomes mired in corruption and dominated by special interests that care only for themselves. Take a good long look at the sad state of public education in the United States. Now tell me why I should expect health care to come out any differently?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Hooray! This is another victory for artist's rights. I hope Tenenbaum pays & suffers the rest of his life.
It's a victory for property rights. Enforced by a jury no less. An artist or author has a right to bread and butter and not just slave wages. If it takes only a few pirates paying a larger cost, that is justice. An artist should be able to set the price for their product.
Look at every country that trashes property rights. POVERTY for all.
If you covet others, they will covet you. It's simple math. If you don't want the product at that price, don't buy it and certainly do not defraud the original artist.
A few people stealing is manageable. But illegal distribution is un-manageable and creates poor quality media. Pirates suck!
May Tenebaum be haunted for years. Property rights work! and they work quite well. Don't trespass on my lawn, thank you. Go find your own property.
Expect the quality of media to rise some, because prices can be set, not just quantity.
Score & Karma: SASA: Slashdot Approval Seekers Anonymous