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."

8 of 492 comments (clear)

  1. Re:bankrupt then what? by seanadams.com · · Score: -1, Troll

    I'm now four years from my bankruptcy and have 50% of my annual salary in unsecured revolving tradelines (i.e: credit cards)

    Good luck with your next bankruptcy, and thanks for your contribution to society.

  2. Who pays this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    I want to see Free Software Foundation paying that bill since FSF assumed an unusual defense of Mr. Tenenbaum.

    FSF are lamers! Free software isn't everywhere, in fact... Free Software would not have to exist!
    FSF is a shame for the free software community and must disappear ASAP

  3. Re:bankrupt then what? by Shakrai · · Score: -1, Troll

    You must be an American, pity you do not have national health insurance program. Sure you may have to wait a bit for elective and non-emergency surgery but at least you don't get bankrupted having emergency surgery. (yes there are a few exceptions, some people die waiting, talking about the vast majority here)

    So what? I'd rather have our system even with my experience, thank you very much. Filing bankruptcy is not the end of the World. It's a legal preceding. Nothing more, nothing less. If you've properly structured your assets you aren't likely to lose anything that really matters (house, family heirlooms, etc).

    I'm sorry but I've never understood the trauma that some people associate with bankruptcy. Our system is designed so that you can start over after experiencing a setback like that. Businesses use it all the time without shame. At the end of the day it's better for society that a business/individual can get a fresh start and remain a productive member of society instead of a debt slave. There isn't any shame in it.

    I'd rather have our bankruptcy process and a free market medical system than have yet another intrusion of Government into my life. "Buy this coverage or we'll fine you. Lose weight or we'll fine you. Don't eat that big mac that we've slapped a sin-tax or we'll fine you." I have choices right now. I'm doubtful that anything that comes out of Washington is going to increase the number of choices I have. History suggests the opposite.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  4. Re:Is this the year of clowns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    all the defenses these people should be using.

    You mean, sneaking a gun into court, and blasting the heads of RIAA's lawyers?

  5. Re:bankrupt then what? by Shakrai · · Score: 0, Troll

    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.
  6. Re:bankrupt then what? by Shakrai · · Score: -1, Troll

    No need for hyperbole, hardly anything is done here at gunpoint.

    Everything government does is done by gunpoint. If I have a disagreement with you and refuse to pay you money that you think you are owed can you take away my freedom and throw me in jail? Government is the only entity that can do that. As I said earlier, that's a good thing when the power is wielded to keep citizens from murdering each other. I tend to think it's a bad thing when the power is wielded to protect you from yourself

    but then again I don't miss the freedoms to drive without a seatbelt

    Then you don't understand what freedom is and have surrendered it to become one of the sheep. I tend to be of the opinion that when you turn 18 (or 21 or whatever you think the age of majority should be) that it becomes your job to protect yourself. Governments job should not be to watch over us like children, making sure that we don't hurt ourselves.

    or to off myself.

    I'm pretty sure you do have the freedom to off yourself. Mind you, not with a gun, because you sheep^WAussies willingly surrendered most of those as well -- but I'd like to hear you explain exactly how the Government can prevent you from offing yourself if you are so inclined?

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  7. Re:bankrupt then what? by Shakrai · · Score: 0, Troll

    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.
  8. Victory for Author's Rights by B_SharpC · · Score: 0, Troll

    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