Full FeedRIAA wins $675k judgement against student
The RIAA has won another outrageous settlement. A Boston student has been ordered to pay $22,500 each for the 30 songs he admitted to downloading and sharing. That’s a total of $675,000. A judge in the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts found him guilty of infringement and asked the jury to decide damages. They were told to charge him between $750 and $30,000 per song.
6 weeks ago a Minnesota jury ordered Jammie Thomas-Rasset to pay the RIAA $1.92 million, or $80,000 per song. She is appealing the case. There is no word if the Boston student, Joel Tenenbaum, will do the same. While the RIAA has agreed to stop suing people for file sharing, it insisted on litigating the cases it had already filed.
The RIAA’s sue-happy stance and the ridiculous judgments probably won’t help them make any friends. They continue to fight against digital music, which has long since replaced the CD as the music distribution system of choice, just as CDs replaced cassettes and cassettes replaced LPs. The huge success of iTunes and the growing popularity of streaming music and internet radio have proven digital music is here to say. Unfortunately the RIAA seems determined to destroy it, between their lawsuits against file sharers and they insistence on charging internet radio stations such high per song royalties that many of them face going out of business altogether.
How do you feel about the RIAA’s actions? Please leave a comment and share your thoughts.
Read [PCWorld]
Keep up with the latest gadget goodness! - 
Subscribe to our feed
Black Friday 2009
Black Friday is almost here! Gadgetell's got you covered with all the latest news on who's offering the best deals. Dangerous crowds? You're on your own.
Palm Pre Information & Updates
Palm just introduced their next-gen smartphone, the Palm Pre, and next-gen operating system, Palm webOS. Gadgetell's got the latest Pre and webOS information and news for you right here.
Good article!
on August 3, 2009 at 01:37 AM - LINKI came across this article from another techy site link and just had to comment.
I’m guessing that making a Beyonce or a Justin Timberlake doesn’t come free, and I’m also guessing that all the others that didn’t make it actually lose the music companies money. Why is it that protecting investments is trampling on the average Joe by Corporate America? And by the way, their lawsuits against the file-sharing users isn’t punishing those that LEGALLY download music (or digital music period). As you argue, iTunes has shown that digital music is here to stay. So why NOT punish those that swipe them instead of paying for them? They’re not real customers anyway!
I know it’s cool to be revolutionary and anti-Corporate America, but these are the people - yes people - handing over most of our paychecks and enabling someone like Tyler Perry or Jewel, some nobody living on the streets, to be a multi-millionaire. Starbucks (maybe not a great example), McDonald’s, etc started off small and became huge through smart business practices and investments—not good ol’ boys from the South with endless supplies of money and politicians in their pockets.
on August 3, 2009 at 10:54 AM - LINKThere’s nothing wrong with protecting investments, but demanding $22,500 a song is just ridiculous and greedy, as are the ridculous royalties they demand of internet radio stations.
on August 3, 2009 at 04:47 PM - LINKCari, youre grouping downloading and free enterprise into one ball of soapbox clay. 22,500 is making an example of someone. The RIAA is clinging to a dated business plan by making a few pay for the crimes of all. Certainly all of us have purchased music in the past. Including this student. They are real customers. maybe I should sue the RIAA for price gouging and stealing from me. $17.99 for a 10 song CD? Whos the real criminal?
on August 4, 2009 at 12:02 PM - LINK