Q: What did you do with 30 songs that got you nailed?I'm very curious as to the source of the "2/3" statistic. And if Tenenbaum wanted "more than anything" that the artists get paid, why didn't he buy the music, instead of taking it for free?
A: I downloaded them and shared them on Kazaa. They also proved in court (because I admitted it) that I used Limewire, iMesh, Morpheus, Napster, and Audiogalaxy, but it doesn’t matter.***Q: The RIAA are a bunch of rotten bastards.
A: I know.
Q: Why did you share them? Why didn’t you just enjoy them yourself?!
A: Art is meant to be shared....
Q: Come on, don’t you want the artists to be paid?A: More than anything. They take the time to learn an instrument, spend the money to get the equipment, and then they pour themselves so completely into their expression. The artists are what matter and 2/3 of them don’t see file sharing as a threat. Just read what Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails has said on this.
Tenenbaum also says in the Q&A, "The RIAA and the Judge in this case succeeded in convincing the jury that the DMCA act of 1999 (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html) should be applied here," and references the range of statutory damages. The DMCA was enacted in 1998, and it had absolutely nothing to do with this case. I believe he meant to refer to the Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999, which did increase both the upper and lower limits of the statutory damages range. However, given the jury's finding of willful infringement, their award of $22,500 could have been exactly the same prior to that law's passage.
Tenenbaum will likely soon be back before Judge Gertner, asking her to reduce the jury's award of $675,000 against him. Expressing precisely zero regret for his illegal acts -- indeed, bragging about them -- and referring to the plaintiffs' trade association as "rotten bastards," will not help his cause. Very, very bad move.