Finnish Courts: Man Who Shared 150 Albums Owes 3,000 Euros
from the that-seems-a-bit-more-reasonable dept
With all of the discussion over the size of the awards in the Jammie Thomas and Joel Tenenbaum rulings, it appears that the courts over in Finland are a bit more reasonable. An appeals court has upheld a ruling against a guy who was found guilty of sharing 150 albums online, and the court has ordered him to pay 3,000 euros. I'm trying to figure out how 24 songs = $1.92 million here in the US, but 150 albums and 1,850 songs = 3,000 euros (a little over $4,000). Which one seems more aligned with the actual action?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, file sharing, fines, finland
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
about freakin' time
Now that's what we call a sensible ruling.
However, I think both European and US courts have their fair share of idiotic rulings. We'll have to see if this trend continues in Europe...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: about freakin' time
I'm sure enough bribery and illegally or unethically manipulating the system occurs in both systems but here in the U.S. it seems more extreme.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: about freakin' time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thank you, a punishment that fits the crime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
> $1 x the # of times it was shared ...
x the percent of people who would have bought the song otherwise x (1 / number of available copies of the song on the internet).
So if the person wouldn't have bought it, you can't count it. And if there are millions of other copies of the song available (so a potential infringer could just as easily get it somewhere else), you can't count it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just like William said, $2.16 is somewhat reasonable however here in the US where songs are .99 cents it is a bit more of a harsh ruling. Regardless, say you purchased music, and you give it to everyone for free, don't you have the rights as long as the DRM is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However, was there actually any evidence presented at trial that someone completely downloaded any or all of the albums without permission?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I know, it's weird. It's almost as if the Finnish peoples can, like, do math and stuff.
Course, with all those islands to count it's no surprise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A little closer to rationality.
Well, with any luck the Finnish court was willing to "ignore the potential multiplying effect of peer-to-peer file-sharing."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
maths is hard!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and if it cant be proven that he shared the whole of the song then doesnt that mean sonething at all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they claimed he shared it dozens, hundreds, or millions would they not have to prove that the recipients exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So why should one person be forced to pay that all back at once? They can't. I stated in another story that it has to do with making them an example. Obviously, that's not going to happen in Finland, so the industries are going to have to strong arm the Finnish government and MAKE them institute American rule in copyright, trademark and patent infringement suits.
Every government in the ENTIRE WORLD will succumb to American rule and US policy when it comes to the copyright, trademark and patent systems we have in place. No government will DARE to stand in the way of that progress. Absolutely NO GOVERNMENT will stand up to the US government. Period! Don't even try it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Now, make it worse - the "stealing" isn't going to get you a criminal record, just a civil judgement. Heck, "infringing" is almost encouraged at that level.
The Thomas and Tenenbaum decisions make it clear: actively sharing music can cost you your future, not just $50. Want to take that risk?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
what should the punishment be for extortion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The world too broad for you? Thats 2 in perhaps 50 Million (being extremely generous on how 'small' that pool is). It simply is not a deterrent, it is extortion carried out by the failing business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you really want to discourage infringers, you need to address what actually motivates them, not what makes sense to those who wouldn't infringe in the first place, and you're thinking like someone who wouldn't infringe in the first place.
What motivates them is complex, but there are some primary themes that can be used. For example, if there were a simple way to get the music in the form they want at a cost that seems reasonable to them, thena large percentage will go that route. A lot of infringers are motivated to do so because they feel they're on a crusade ("sticking it to the man") and those are certainly not going to be dissuaded by extreme punishments. They are actually encouraged by them, and by all the other actions the labels have taken.
To reduce infringement takes a completely different approach than what the RIAA crowd is doing. RIAA is only making it more prevalent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong, the first trial of Jammie Thomas was thrown out on exactly this point. Tenenbaum and Thomas-Rassett II both required the jury to find either actual downloading or actual sharing. Given that Thomas-Rassett and Tenebaum both lied in depositions and/or on the witness stand and both destroyed evidence, I am not surprised by the outrageous verdict. Juries love to punish liars. We don't have much info about the Finn, but I doubt he engaged in similar skullduggery, merely pointed out a lack of evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brutal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Neither will the two other guys that will now file for bankruptcy protection and pay nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congratulations, Finland!
Seems worth applauding logical, reasonable and fair thinking these days. Especially when it comes to copyright law/cases.
Keep it up, Finland!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So any fine that a violated is forced to pay becomes meaningless to consumer when it comes to buying music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Incorrect - the consumer almost always wants to pay as a little as possible. Honestly, if you could shoplift with impunity, don't you think your trips to the shopping mall would be way more interesting? The only reason we don't have mass shoplifting is because we have laws, rules, and societal norms.
With music (or movies, or software, or whatever) if people think they don't have to pay, or they can get it for free, they will. So what someone who is found liable pays has a great influence on the number of people who will consider file trading as a safe, effective, and free method to get music.
A few more cases like this, and parents will be checking their kids computers out a whole bunch more closely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Dude, it must SUCK to have such a jaded view of humanity. The people you're describing are out there, but shame on you for not recognizing how vastly outweighed they are by the majority of good, honest people. I hope they're paying you well to spew such dishonest, hospitable garbage. You've just vocalized your industry's major problem: it sees its customers as the enemy.
"With music (or movies, or software, or whatever) if people think they don't have to pay, or they can get it for free, they will."
Take the empire-like multi-national corporation out of the equation and you're incredibly wrong, as has been shown by several music acts that get consumers to pay them directly.
"So what someone who is found liable pays has a great influence on the number of people who will consider file trading as a safe, effective, and free method to get music."
I actually agree with that, and I have a negative view of infringing file sharing. But I'd argue that the effect of those ridiculous fines is more a deterrent to listening to affiliated music than buying vs. infringing.
"A few more cases like this, and parents will be checking their kids computers out a whole bunch more closely."
Jesus I hate it when you fascist-types actual show your pleasure in scaring everyday people. Marx got a lot wrong, but he did get one thing right: keep oppressing and eventually you'll go to far and the middle class WILL rise up against you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"You've just vocalized your industry's major problem:"
IT AIN'T MY INDUSTRY! How many times have I got to repeat this? There aren't any RIAA shills on this board, just people that don't have the same f-ed up opinions as you have.
GET OVER IT! Seriously, do I have to get a lawyer? ;)
As for the rest of your stuff, you need to study basic group / mob mentality. Right now the mob thinks they can steal anything digital, emboldened by the actions of some. Change that around and shift the mob mentality to "we could actually get caught" and suddenly the riot is over.
It isn't about anyone treating their customers as the enemy. The customers are ransacking the store, what do you expect them to do? Hand them a baseball bat and help them swing it?
*shakes head*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
what makes your opinion of greater value than that of others around you ?
seems you have a rather inflated opinion of yourself
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As much as Mike tries to paint music and movies as not being deserving of any copyright protection, our society as a whole (almost entirely worldwide) has recognized the same basic concepts. When someone violates those concepts, the law of the land comes into play and the punishment meted out per the laws.
The purpose of those laws isn't just to "make them whole", but also to discourage the violating of those laws and rules. Making a "copyright infringer" pay only what it would have cost them to purchase the music / movies original isn't much of a punishment. The risk? having to pay. The reward? Free music / movies. Why would they not take the risk?
The mob mentality out there are this point (and many posters here are in that mob) is that there is no risk, and any punishment is somehow "wrong". Mike has spewed on about everything from 1st Amendment issues to bizarre abstractions of product and goods, but in the end, the law of the land on copyright has survived hundreds of years for a reason - because generally it is good. So the current mob mentality isn't any different from the last LA riot - what you are protesting may be valid, but the method of protest isn't. Normal people are getting "mob ruled" into breaking windows and setting fires, even if they aren't really upset, because they think they can get away with it.
Jammie and Joel are the living proof that you can't get away with it all the time, the element of risk has been put back on the table. Are you going to "infringe" and share a few hundreds dollars (retail) of music at the risk of millions of dollars of punishment? Smart people might think that the risk isn't worth the reward.
F-ed up opinions are the ones that start out with "let's all break the law".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you new here? I'd like references for this stupid claim please, thanks.
The entire point of this blog, from day one, which you apparently have missed, is that the market pressure determines the price, period. This has nothing to do with whether the art deserves protection, and everything to do with the simple fact that it can no longer be protected in the same draconian fashion. Maybe you should do a little reading before speaking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How short? Dark Side of the Moon would have been in the public domain before it fell off of the Top 200 sales chart.
What was valid and relevant 200 or more years ago doesn't exactly work today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You really are full of yourself
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When these organizations (MAFIAA) have tried to sue every innovative start up online that helps the consumers (the people who really determine value - which is different from price) get what they want in great ways, then nobody will like said organizations. Make sense? This is the internet. Technology advances. The organizations seem hell bent on stopping a future that all consumers want. When all of your customers want something, you need to find out a way to make money by helping them get that. If it is not how you have always made money, well then too damn bad. Figure out something new. Just because things were one way once doesn't mean they have to be that way forever. Fucking adapt or die bitches. Your hatred for the way things will be in these industries and failure to come up with new ways to make money off of that make people hate you. Stop fighting the future when the future is awesome and everybody could be happy (except aparently you lazy people who don't want to have to think for two seconds).
As I have said, people will pay the artists who do the work, but do not want to pay middlemen who screw over artists. I am one of those people. That is really all there is to it. Fight the consumers and lose, no matter how many laws you try to screw the world over with. Try paying attention to this argument instead of calling us criminals and a mob and pirates and theives. It just mades you look incredily stupid because you never pay attention. You are the reason companies die (and need to).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This, folks, is an Ad Absurdum fallacy, better known (and helpfully self-identified!) as the Slippery Slope fallacy. It's also the only two sentences you need to read to throw out the entire rest of his arguement.
And it does nothing to deter, because once you get those ridiculous judgements no human being could hope to pay without owning their own company, they have no reason to stop sharing. Already lost everything, got nothing more to lose, so why not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Take your pick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Neither!
$1920000/$0 = €3000/€0 = ∞.
See they’re both infinitely greater than the “damage”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Excuse me while I die from laughter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
maybe this is the EU way?
http://torrentfreak.com/hackers-whack-music-industry-for-punishing-pirate-090802/
so, at least some countries in Europe seem to be more reasonable after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get the facts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WRONG. Anarchy is not a lack of order. IT is a lack of orders. This is a key distinction between the two. ORder is a concept, but orders are things you are told to do.
Also, sensible country is sensible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Our bonuses were our property and you tried to steal them fromus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you ask me how to fix these overblown judgments it would be to force the lawyers to take a much, much, much smaller share of any judgments or force them to just take a fair hourly pay for their time. By allowing lawyers to take a good chunk of the judgment awarded it drives more lawyers to bring up suits for the sole task of bring in fast cash. You see too many lawyers quick to want to bring up class action suits and then the people that were supposedly harmed get a couple hundred of bucks out of it while the lawyers bring in millions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
compared to a human life
That means for the RIAA, an mp3 is worth three times more than a human life. Is that reasonable?
If find it very disturbing that one song should be worth so much more than the life of a loved one or even a complete stranger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...Anyone who smokes since 1965 knows it's bad for your health. Just as anyone who has downloaded music since the Napster days knows it illegal to share music on the internet. These people deserve what they get for having the intelligence of a smoker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Smoking can and will kill you over time (and those around you to an extent).
Downloading music hurts nobody. And as long as I have the rights to the song from buying it from somewhere, I can download it all I want perfectly legally, much to the RIAAs dismay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]