I’m not saying file-sharing is wrong. I’m not saying file-sharing is right. I’m saying that file-sharing is.Tenenbaum just got ordered to pay $675,000 for his file-sharing. Judge Gertner has said there will be a post-trial proceeding to determine whether she will reduce the award as unconstitutional or otherwise excessive. Does Tenenbaum truly think his refusal to acknowledge that his actions were "wrong" will help his cause? It's almost as if he's telling the court: "$675,000 isn't enough to deter me. Can I have some more?"
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Tenenbaum gets existential: File-sharing isn't 'wrong' or 'right'; it just 'is'
Tenenbaum tells The New Yorker:
13 comments:
Comments here are moderated. I appreciate substantive comments, whether or not they agree with what I've written. Stay on topic, and be civil. Comments that contain name-calling, personal attacks, or the like will be rejected. If you want to rant about how evil the RIAA and MPAA are, and how entertainment companies' employees and attorneys are bad people, there are plenty of other places for you to go.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
You might also be interested in Joel's diary of events being serialised in the Guardian.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2009/aug/06/joel-tenenbaum-trial-diary-one
It's called principle, dude.
ReplyDeleteI think that's exactly what Joel and many of the world's music pirates are saying.
ReplyDeleteNow whether you agree with their stance or not, one has to admire the tenacity and vehemence. It was that sort of human individualism and ornery cussedness that sparked the American Revolution.
I'm not comparing "no taxation without representation" to "Tenenebaum steals 30 songs," but I can't help but admire the similarities in fierce opposition to a law they find unjust.
- JBC
Ben I think he is saying that file sharing is here to stay and no amount of damages will deter him or others like him from engaging in it in future. The $675,000 is just a big number to him but otherwise meaningless. Even if it was $1.8m he couldn't pay either amount, so there is no difference to him.
ReplyDelete@Anonymous 8:26:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that that's what he's saying. My point is that refusing to acknowledge that what he did was "wrong" will harm his effort to reduce the damages. His statements since the verdict may be genuine expressions of his own sentiments, but they are reckless and could end up costing him dearly.
Perhaps he feels there is nothing to lose at this point.
ReplyDelete@Anonymous 8:41:
ReplyDeletePerhaps, but that would be another terrible miscalculation on his part. 100% of his energy should be focused on reducing the huge award hanging over his head. His post-verdict statements work directly contrary to that end. Remember: given the jury's finding of willfulness, it is far from clear that the judgment will be dischargeable in bankruptcy.
Two things, Ben.
ReplyDeleteOne: a distinction exists between Joel's file sharing and file sharing generally. Strictly speaking, Joel's statement is perfectly accurate. How, and to what degree, we conflate the two 'sharings' at issue is a question that has not been handled neatly by either side, and is at the core of the constitutional challenge Joel has raised. How the individual file sharer relates to the group of all file sharers is a crucial question of justice (ontologically speaking). Unless and until there's an argument made addressing Joel's specific conduct, how it actually harmed the industry, and in what proportion, it's going to be hard to summon the moral outrage that torts at common law tend to incite.
Two: What remains to be deterred? Joel said — on the stand — that he doesn't share files over peer to peer networks anymore. Dr. Jacobson's forensic inspection of his computer plausibly reflects this posture from May 2008 onward. The exhibits to Dr. Jacobson's report clearly show the presence of .m4a and .m4p music files (likely and definite for-pay iTunes music files, respectively) on Joel's computer, dating from then to the present. It's a strange flagrant infringer who turns around and starts to hew to the pay-for-play model.
Ah yes, "de facto is de jure". It's the usual appeal-to-authority argument that illogical people turn to when they realize how badly wrong they are.
ReplyDeleteI will certainly come out and say that noncommercial filesharing is right. It is supported by thousands of years of academic and religious tradition. There is a big difference between knowledge and physical property, and there is a significant moral good in sharing knowledge.
ReplyDeletekarateka: So you're claiming that it's an act of religious devotion to dub copies of Britney Spears's "Womanizer"?
ReplyDeleteAnd you're saying there's no value in free information? Let the strawmaning begin!
ReplyDelete"There is a big difference between knowledge and physical property, and there is a significant moral good in sharing knowledge."
ReplyDeleteWhat part of a Britney Spears song, as you're so fond of utilizing as examples, constitutes knowledge that should be free?