Comments on: Tenenbaum Demands Rehearing of $675,000 RIAA File-Sharing Case

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 16:09:00 +0000

All you creator haters might have a little more traction in the legislative/judicial battlefield if you didn’t use all your bullets defending clowns like Tenenbaum and Jamie Thomas, both of whom get their asses handed to them every time they get within a 100 yards of an impartial jury. If enforcing copyright law poses such an egregious threat to life, liberty and the American way, where are the cases and defendants that prove it? Mr Neeson? You have pretty much ensured that laws to protect IP will pass Congress by your having screamed ‘the sky is falling’ for the last decade. I know, facts and logic are hard.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 02:14:00 +0000

http://phlpn.es/ahdxct

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 01:07:00 +0000

tinyurl.com/3j5ovpk

By: Travis McCrea

Travis McCrea — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 01:03:00 +0000

Punch a baby in the face
spray a cop with some mace
I drink my urine for the taste

… : amidoingitright?

By: makin257 - Tenenbaum Demands Rehearing of $675,000 RIAA File-Sharing Case

makin257 - Tenenbaum Demands Rehearing of $675,000 RIAA File-Sharing Case — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 21:40:18 +0000

[...] jury instruction which led to a staggering $675,000 fine was both erroneous and prejudicial.Source:http://torrentfreak.com/tenenbaum-demands-rehearing-of-675000-riaa-file-sharing-case-111103/ LJShare.link({"url":"http://makin257.livejournal.com/1320007.html","title":"Tenenbaum Demands [...]

By: Friday Evening Links - | Appenheimer

Friday Evening Links - | Appenheimer — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 15:10:23 +0000

[...] Evening Links – Are we in the middle of a patent bubble? theregister.co.uk Tenenbaum Demands Rehearing of 5,000 RIAA File-Sharing Case torrentfreak.com U.S. Cellular Passed On iPhone, ‘Risks Unacceptable’ wirelessweek.com [...]

By: Ana Cristina Merino - Tenenbaum Demands Rehearing of $675,000 RIAA File-Sharing Case

Sat, 05 Nov 2011 11:58:14 +0000

By: ThumbsUpThumbsDown

ThumbsUpThumbsDown — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 02:43:00 +0000

If what you mean by “difficult to make money without money” is that in any truley compettitive market whosoever starts without investment equity finds it more difficult to earn his money, I agree. It’s called sweat equity, or in the working man’s language, “The hard road to hoe.” That said, however, copyright as a hundred year entitlement, is the easiest way to make fat unearned money (not for the artist, but for second purchace distributor whose business is to aggregate and trade the monopoly attributes of copyright).

The problem with the digital internet is not that the creative artist is disenfranchised; but rather, just the opposite, that the artist is empowered. It is the second purchase digital distributer who is dispossed. Why? Because the whole internet knows that digital costs of distribution actually(replication, warehousing, and transmission) are a minimal margin above zero. It is the commercial distributer looking to charge his historical premium that is disenfranchized. Why? Because while the ortginal creative artist is as indispensible as ever in the digital universe, no one on the internet can be easily persuaded to pay the copyright distributer’s premieum. Why? Because in the digital universe that copyright distributor is a pure profit
legally previledged parrasite and is as necessary as tits on a bull.

By: Guest

Guest — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 02:00:00 +0000

Mehhh, I already hoped, that I could download unlimited mp3s for $9.95, but Napster is just for streaming, right?
Guess I’ll stick to Grooveshark then, it’s free. Though I’m wondering how is it any better than downloading from Piratebay – they’re both free. Or is it that, for every play, the artist gets revenue? Hell yeah, I’m gonna put my favourite track on repeat then, when I go to sleep and school, and the producer is going to be rich :D

By: Megarock Radio

Megarock Radio — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 23:39:00 +0000

Maybe it’s just me but why is music and movies the only two items known to man to be penalized for more than the item is worth? If someone steals something it is judged on it’s worth – locally they consider anything under 150 a misdemeanor and anything over a felony. It is judged based on the value of the item. Since the RIAA allows Napster to sell a subscription for 9.95 a month for unlimited music it would seem legally the courts would have to follow the precedent of value to be used in judging infringement costs. If I can essentially download every song on Napster for 9.95 a month that makes the value of an individual track next to nothing.