Joel Tenenbaum admits in court he shared music files

There's no subterfuge with Joel Tenenbaum.

(Credit: Greg Sandoval/CNET News)

The graduate student accused of copyright violations admitted in court on Thursday that he shared files and knew others were downloading the music he made available on Kazaa, according to a Twitter post from blogger Ben Sheffner.

Sheffner, a copyright lawyer who is covering the story from the courtroom, wrote "(Music industry) attorney getting scores of admissions from Tenenbaum. Joel doesn't resist."

The four major music labels, Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group, EMI and Sony Music filed the copyright suit against Tenenbaum and in previous statements he denied sharing, according to Sheffner.

By admitting guilt, it appears Tenenbaum is going to take his chances that his attorney, Prof. Charles Nesson can convince the jury that sharing unauthorized music files doesn't cause that much harm and ordering defendants to pay big damages isn't justified.

Tenenbaum, along with Jammie Thomas-Rasset, are the only people accused of illegal file sharing that have taken their cases before a jury. In June, Thomas was found liable of copyright infringement and ordered to pay nearly $2 million.

[biffhenerson]

"...doesn't cause that much harm..."

I have to try that defense. Something like...
"Yeah I shot the guy six times in the back but he is still alive so I shouldn't be punished too much. Can't we just be friends and forget the whole thing happened?"

The only way to stop the stealing is to punish the criminals. If the punishment isn't enough, the stealing will continue. You will know when the punishment is enough when the frequencey of stealing decreases. The criminals will determine that threshold, not law enforement.

What are the odds of getting caught? Not great. That is perhaps the true cause of stealing music. The punishment could be death but if the odds were that one in 300,000,000 would be caught, the criminals may still take the risk as they would "never" be caught.

Maybe they need to drag 2,000,000 people to court and charge them each $10,000.00 That may cause this issue to hit closer to home and have people take it serisously.

[Fizmarble]

This topic is always interesting to me. You compared stealing to attempted murder. That wouldn't be quite as absurd if it weren't for the fact that the "stealing" in this sense, doesn't take something from someone necessarily. If I steal your car, you don't have it anymore. If I steal a copy of your favorite song, it removes nothing from your collection. If I steal a song on Kazaa that I would have bought otherwise by legal means, I have now deprived the artist and record label of a small bit of profit. If I download a song that I never would have bought anyway, either because I can't afford it, or other reasons, I have done no harm to anyone on the planet. So to blanket call it stealing, assumes that something has been stolen, which is not always the case.

[micmahsi]

Not to pass judgment, but let me take a guess: you're at least 40+.

Maybe not, but that's not the point anyways.

Your shortsighted and narrow minded solution only punishes a country's own citizens, non-violent offenders who take advantage of the technology made available to them. Now does this make it ok to steal, probably not.

But the solution is not to make the punishment for stealing greater.
If such a large majority of our society is doing it then what's does punishing every single person result in.
Let me tell you, a distrust and dislike for our own government which is detrimental to a country of any stature and especially at a time like this when international competition in industry and technology is getting especially fierce.

The answer is not a change in legislation, but a change in the way the music industry operates.
Instead of legislation constantly trying to catch up with technology (a never ending uphill battle),
the music industry needs to work with the technology to develop a better solution.

For instance, why not have a giant server with every song it, when you listen to a song, royalties are paid by the advertisements included on the page (or ipod screen, or car stereo screen, or whatever other interface you decide to use). Who knows? But we do need new ideas to replace this antiquated system. Music no longer has a physical format.

[gggg sssss]

let me guess - you are a rap singer that cant sell a single cr*ppy song. Or a former employee of a studio that got canned because nobody wanted your cr*p anymore. Nobody got shot. Nobody lost the use of something. At most an artist lost the few cents pay for the copies of the sog that somebody might ( doubtful though) have purchased. Th erest of your argument is just bull.

[Dalkorian]

Copyright infringement = theft = attempted murder. Nice way to prove a loose grasp of the English language!

[rdupuy11]

@biffhenerson

You can't separate sharing a music download from attempted murder? What about speeding, is that the same as attempted murder? What about if you stepped in front of someone in the hallway, and were thinking about something else and forgot to say 'excuse me', also the same as attempted murder?

Man, talk about being a concrete thinker, you should take an award.

[gggg sssss]

@rdupuy11 there is a video on youtube somehere about a guy getting tasered for speeding, so dont give anyone ideas.

[Herbal Ed]

Saying that taking something I would not otherwise purchase is not stealing??? Now there's some logic.

[SethCizzle]

Here is the bottom line, 99% of the songs people download they wouldnt pay for for anyway. They just download them becuase they are free. I would never go buy a milli vanilli cd, however I may download it if it costs nothing. With that said, the record company is not truely losing money in this scenerio. Only in the case where someone would actually purchase the cd, but then decides to download it would there be a net loss (which I bet is the exception).

They should spend more energy looking at the true root cause of the issue... Peoples value of music has decreased signficantly over the past decade. This is partially due to the music industry flooding the market with poor music. And the fact that they no longer control all distribution channels.

After further review, I cant think of a single album that I would ever purchase for $20 again. Hopefully the music industry can come to grips with that...

With that said, my genious tip to all artists / record labels : You want to make money... go on tour and show off your true music talent live... hmmmmm...

[DrakeBrimstone]

The way I see it, he's not guilty of anything if he legaly owned a copy of the music. Are you going to charge my public library with copyright infringement for making audio CDs available to borrow when some people are going to copy the music off the CDs and return them? It's those who DOWNLOAD the music without owning a legal copy that are breaking the law.

[4wight]

You really should learn a bit more about a subject if you're going to post your opinions for everyone to see, otherwise you just look like you don't know what you're talking about. Which you don't. First, it doesn't make any difference if you own the record or not - by law, you cannot share or distribute that music to other people - that is copyright infringement. That is the law, it's not a matter of what you or I think. You also appear to be ignorant of the fact that libraries have a system whereby the artists who make the records and films they lend out receive a share of money for every time it is lent out. The fact that someone records that cd is that person's responsibility,not the libraries, and once again by law, that person is infringing copyright. (However it is almost impossible to catch someone who copies stuff for their own use - it is only when they start distributing it that it is easier to catch them)

[Herbal Ed]

Knowingly abetting someone to commit a crime is a crime. But in our modern "me" society it's OK to take what's not yours if it's a "tiny" crime. Problem is, millions of tiny crimes makes for stealing to the tune of millions of dollars ... pun not intended.

[BantryBay]

When you know something is illegal, and you do it anyway, showing remorse after getting caught doesn't excuse the individual. He will be found guilty, as he should then maybe, just maybe people will realize every file they share, cheats the artist, and music companies. Not that I have a whole lot of sympathy for the cheating music industry, but the artists I care about.

[ThatGuy2-1]

you're guilty of crappy posts, stop replying... lol, just kidding. You do make sense, but I still feel they're trying to get as much as they can by portraying him as an example. They wouldn't be in this situation is they produce some "decent" music by "talented" artists and offer them at "reasonable" prices. Not the garbage they produce with all the flash, expensive cars that they still don't own ('cos they're waiting for the cash from the lawsuits), superman that ho's, ji ji jeeyaahs and general lack of decency and then have "one" good/decent song in the album and sell it all with other fillers for $25 a pop and then don't even give us the right to copy the CD on to our own PC so we can put it on an iPod or other player. Some people have more than one computer and sometimes we need to have our files in both of them and it gets annoying with the DRM **** 'cos it tries to make you feel as if you stole something!!!

[ThatGuy2-1]

it's all about the money as always. So lets say the guy had 2500 songs and shared them and lets say each song was shared maybe 50 times. That's probably going WAY too much too 'cos not all songs will have as many hits/downloads. Taking that; 123750 downloads at the rate of $.99 (typical iTunes price), we come up with $247500 and like I said, that's probably way more than the damage he caused by sharing ... Where the hell do they come up with $2M in damages? It's one thing if it's a civil penalty/punishment/etc. but this is the money hungry corporates who's trying to get as much as they can with as little as they can. Is he responsible for the music other people share too? Oh wait, that new rap artist needs to buy a new diamond encrusted Bentley...

They even tried to raise their share of profits on iTunes recently and Apple said they'd rather shut down the iTunes store than give them more or raise prices ... lol

[Herbal Ed]

There are many things that I think are more expensive than they should be ... so does that mean it's OK for me to steal them?

The one thing that the courts have yet to answer is 'what is the true damages caused by a digital download'.. this is especially true when there are quite a few companies offering a fixed monthly price for all the music listening you can do.

The really sucky part is that artists only get 8-10% of the revenue generated depending on which tier the song is listed on iTunes.

I think everyone can agree that the music industry is outdated. At this point they are struggling to 'contain' instead of innovating.

The funny thing is that the more exposure the artists get to a broader user base probably generates more legal / legitimate sales in the end.

[3pmetarip]

"The funny thing is that the more exposure the artists get to a broader user base probably generates more legal / legitimate sales in the end."

Bingo. Did VHS tapes ruin the movie business? No. The movie industry was stimulated by it. The record companies need to read "Tribes."

[gggg sssss]

He should be charged with the true cost of the download ie zero. If he had not done this, none of the artists , none of the studios would have been one cent richer. THEY had no cost in this. They got paid for the actual original CD. OK, maybe 10 people would have paid for teh song if they are lucky. Maybe the artists themselves deserve a few cents. The US govt caved in to the studio industry with lavish payoffs. End of story. All of the whining arguements about theft are just a bunch of bull.

[NewAquarius]

It's completely naive to think of the effects of theft by file sharing on a transaction to transaction basis. The degradation of the protections of intellectual property is gradual. This isn't about getting rich.

Think about your paycheck. What if the government decided to allow your employer to round your wages down to the nearest dollar? You weren't using that .$65 were you? That .$65 wasn't going to make you rich anyway, right? Add that up for as many paychecks as you receive in a year. Then in two. Getting the picture yet? Now imagine that instead of getting a check with a little shaved off the top, you had thousands of employers that all paid you $.65 per check.

You're not buying a CD. You're purchasing a private exhibition license to the material on it. It isn't yours to share.

[gggg sssss]

@ NewAge - You want poor Joel to take the fall for the whole system of copyright and its weaknesses? Copyright is a balancing act - like the protection racket. By letting an artist sell out to a studio so that some guy in Japan or LA can drive around in a Mercedes you make a deal that users can certain things with the CD they buy. And whatever is on it. In the last years the system has swung way to far in favor of those big conglomerates. The Govt has given in to them by allowing their particular protection racket to flourish. Joel is fighting back to return to a fairer balance. Would you like to still be paying royalties on the invention of the wheel to some bunch of lawyers and accountants?

[baconstang]

Joel is the one who broke the law. And your incredibly lame attempts at rationalizing don't cut it. If you don't like the law, write your congressman.

[CreativeMalcolm]

Really he should just be paying a one time subscription of 15 dollars for unlimited music... I mean... isn't that what the labels want me to do?

[davidwillisw]

that's what i like bout c net,sometimes they will let any?"individual" start the post no matter how dumb he sounds. course that doesn't sound too bad when you think about it 2,000,000 people going to court all at the same time? sounds good to me! then maybe those that think that way would have to show some proof that they legally owned the tunes and that they didn't shaft some songwriter or singer by dangling some quick bucks in front of him.you know i'm old enough to remember when copywrite was there to protect! not just as a club for big cartels to run governments with and beat the ordinary Man,Woman,and CHILD into submission.i'm now at the point now where i wish there was no such thing as copywrong protection.like how much money do you have to make off of something?can get by on the first $1,000,000?me,me,me !! it's mine ,mine,mine!!sad,sad,sad.oh and don't give me the intellectial rights crap! if you've made a pot full of cash from something then it's notintellect to want to keep it all it's GREED .

[rdupuy11]

I agree. In a wide open system, where anyone can record their music and upload it to iTunes, with no record company involvement at all....the way good songs will be weeded out from the average or even poor songs, is via, the judgement of the public themselves....much in the same way you see some really good Kindle work (books) coming out now, not ever vetted by a publisher...only the best work ends up selling, but once you get on the best seller list, the work really takes off.

It doesn't take a lot of genius speculation to see the new system won't create the billionaire - Michael Jackson type superstar.... rather a successful artist will probably only have millions (however at the same time we would see more of these artists, than now).

And all ranges in between would occur too, including those (like now) who don't make it...and the journeyman artist.

But overall, there would be more money for artists, and the moving away from a few, centralized powerhouses, to a more spread out, democratic type system, where there are more regional artists and local artists getting attention...really isn't going to be a bad thing...

if you ask me, the opposite, it means a renaissance in music.

[rdupuy11]

Frankly while this guy is guilty of what is currently defined as a crime, the answer is not to punish him, its to change the law, so that what he is doing is perfectly legal.

We have the right, meaning the public, to have laws that reflect our values. While some of you believe in 'limited monopoly' powers, I know a lot others, absolutely do not.

There was a time, once upon a time, when publishing music was expensive, the guy in his home didn't have the ability to press his own records, or to get access to a wide distribution system.

But those days are long gone. We don't have to protect music at all. Artists can get paid for their work via merchandising and live performance, tv contract, and licensing.

But anything copyable, guess what....the law can be changed and should be changed to make this perfectly legal, because copying increases distribution, and in that business model would be encouraged because it leads to more profits, and not less.

This isn't about the average artist at all...only about record companies, and in some cases, existing, established artists, who succeeded in the old system, and feel no compuncture to try out a new one.

But for up and coming artists... when the new models develop you may find the new system works for you much better in terms of real revenue.

[NewAquarius]

>But those days are long gone. We don't have to protect music at all. Artists can get paid for their work via merchandising and live performance, tv contract, and licensing.

How can you not recognize how ridiculous this "logic" is? BUYING A CD IS A LICENSE, GENIUS!!!!!!! For private exhibition of the material on it. How can you say that music needn't be protected and then rattle off a bunch of revenue sources that depend completely upon licensing and the legal protection of intellectual property??!?!?!

Buy your music and wise up. Don't just repeat everything you read on the internet. Only a fool does that.

[gggg sssss]

@NewAge well no, buying a CD is buying a CD. If I break the CD or lose it, do I get another one for free? No. But according to you I still have that licence so why not? And when they went from records to 8 tracks to cassettes to CDs to iTunes, why do I have to pay over and over?

You should know, BTW, that if I buy a server licence from the evil Microsoft and I break the CD, I can get a new one for the cost of shipping (and now download the software for no additional cost)

Your argument make sense only to an employee of a failed record store whining that they shoudl still get paid because nobody buys their records anymore..So sad

[baconstang]

If you bought a CD and were to dumb to back it up, that's your problem.

[Herbal Ed]

Making legal the free downloading of music, movies, etc. sounds great ... everybody gets it for free. Problem is who's going to spend the millions ... ever ten's of millions ... to produce a great movie?

Maybe you'd be happy to see and hear only movies or music that costs nothing to produce. I'm not. Also, if a great artist can make millions entertaining millions of people, more power to them.

And to those who say it's OK to steal because the music is crap anyway ... why would you want crap music, even if it were free???

[man_w_balls]

Copying or allowing the copying of anything is not the same as Stealing. When something is stolen, the owner is deprived of the original chattel. When MP3's are SHARED, they are just shared. So the big rich music companies don't get their half-dollar per song or whatever, big deal! It's not worth suing someone over.
Hypothetical situation: I am a poor farmer, with little or no money. I need to farm to make food for my family or to sell for money for clothes, etc... What if I reproduce a patented farm implement by my own ingenuity, that saves labor for me and makes farming easier, but I don't have any money to pay royalties to the original patent owner? If that is a crime, then our laws do need to change in regard to "intellectual property."
Because when human innovation is shared without taking property of value from others, then the prosperity of the human race increases overall.

[NewAquarius]

Your metaphor does not hold up. This is about recorded music. Your metaphor would only work if someone needed what the music provided in their lives, and since they couldn't afford to buy recordings decided to make their own music or their own recordings.

Like many who have commented here, it doesn't seem that you understand this issue either.

[jhenry3107]

You don't need a voucher, dealers will apply a credit at purchase

Jimhenry
Blogger
www.cashforclunkersfacts.info
http://www.cashforclunkersfacts.info

[Herbal Ed]

Just to balance out my above comments .... While I do think downloading of music or movies you don't pay for or already own is stealing .... I do feel that the fines being issued are wayyyyy to large and disproportionate.

There's no easy solution here but making it all free will not work ... at least, if you want artists and producers to create high-quality entertainment and art.

I'm betting that everyone who thinks these things should all be free does not themselves work for free.