Talk:Sony BMG v. Tenenbaum

Re-creation

Though it was previously deleted in 2008, I thought it reasonable to re-create it at this time since the person has had news articles written about him (and his case), a widely-followed Twitter feed, a popular Facebook fan group, etc. Specifically, having read the BBC article about him, I was curious as to his age (which I still haven't found out, btw) and came here; I'm sure I'm not the only one. As an aside, I'll also reiterate my response from the new AfD page: one could argue that it is the case rather than Tenenbaum himself that is notable (though I think the distinction is blurry), but this argues for, at most, a move-with-redirect from Joel Tenenbaum to RIAA v. Tenenbaum (which is currently a redirect the other way). /blahedo (t) 19:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I added Joel's date of birth. Simplicius (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixing emphasis

Well, ok, Irbisgreif seems to have switched it as described in the previous section but did not deign to actually edit it to be primarily about the case and not the person, which is required, and I don't have time at this point. (And I have no idea at all what's up with the anonymous editor who made a driveby tagging as requiring cleanup, copyediting, and an expert—it is grammatical, sourced, and growing organically. Perhaps a bit stubby yet, but I'm not sure how helpful the tags are to anyone.) /blahedo (t) 00:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Great job to start an article. It is a matter to us all. Simplicius (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Page title

The title of this article should be changed to reflect reality. The case is called Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum Hartboy (talk) 08:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

But we hate RIAA. --77.109.213.122 (talk) 10:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Article moved ~~ GB fan ~~ 17:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

---

RIAA v. Tenenbaum → Sony BMG v. Tenenbaum — As stated above under 'Page title,' I believe the title of this article should be changed for reasons of precision and neutrality. The correct caption for this case is Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, and it is most commonly referred to in reliable, secondary sources as that or a shortened variation of that name. The RIAA was not a party to this lawsuit, nor was it directly involved. Hartboy (talk) 02:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Support. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

George Hotz mention

This case was referenced on here. Is this notable to mention due to both guys having conflicts with Sony? DB (talk) 05:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't see any connection. If it was a file-sharing case, it'd be worth a 'see also' at best. —mjb (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Biographical details

There seems to be some debate over how much of Tenenbaum's biographical details should be in the article. Tenenbaum himself wants to add info about his formal education; User:TJRC doesn't think its relevant, because it's not about the case.

My 2 cents: I wouldn't insist on having such info in the article, but I think the type of people who are being targeted in these cases—young, easily bankrupted students, clueless about their rights and unable to obtain legal representation—is relevant; Judge Gertner was emphatic on this point. Also, maybe this isn't compelling, but the skeptical reader shouldn't be left to assume anything about him; in the court of public opinion, many believe file-sharers are simply dumb, shiftless, bratty kids, not (people about to become) multiple degree-holding scholars. —mjb (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi everybody. It didn't feel honest to edit this article with my regular account so I made this one. On the question of what to include in personal info, I leave in the very capable hands of the people who edit this article without a flagrant conflict of interest. If people think personal details are irrelevant, I'm not going to object. But I saw that someone had added what I studied and thought it would be reasonable to mention the more notable research me and some collaborators had done, since it got some news coverage too.

But I'll err on the side of caution and stick to just watching the article for flagrant legal inaccuracies. You guys can work out the rest to whatever seems most appropriate.--Joeltenenbaum (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Which song was removed and why

The original suit named 31 songs, but at trial, only 30 songs were at issue. Which one was removed, when, and why? —mjb (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

A Google search reveals WGBH News once reported that it was the Smashing Pumpkins song which disappeared from the list. This makes sense, as the copyright was owned by Virgin, and neither Virgin, Capitol, nor EMI are plaintiffs in the case (this of course is prior to the UMG buyout of EMI). I'm unable to find the WGBH report now, except in Google's cache. So we still need to confirmation, and answers to the question of when and why this song was not included in the case. —mjb (talk) 06:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Implications

There were several wide reaching implications of the court's ruling in the case. One of the primary effects of the ruling is that the appeals court made it so that all people who download songs illegally can be given the same levels of penalties as a business aimed at pirating and distributing copyrighted materials. Along with this, the courts rulings also helped to solidify the ability to award equal amounts of payment for both nominal and actual losses that a company may face due to the actions of a those who illegally download their products. . Furthermore, it is because of cases like these that the recording industry has been able to take much more action against the illegal downloading of music and has caused them to hand out thousands of lawsuits and be able to directly influence the shutting down of particular websites that facilitate this practice. Many also contend that this decision helped to shift a disproportionate amount of power to the corporations and have effectively given them the ability to control the digital music market. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkingg (talk • contribs) 11:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

^^ This text was also inserted into the page itself. It's amateurish writing and needs editing at the very least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.90.140 (talk) 10:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sony BMG v. Tenenbaum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121010200134/http://www.boston.com/businessupdates/2012/05/21/music-downloading-damages-against-student-joel-tenenbaum-left-intact-supreme-court/QinlYIwd2UdAKOIhaNGPvL/story.html to http://www.boston.com/businessupdates/2012/05/21/music-downloading-damages-against-student-joel-tenenbaum-left-intact-supreme-court/QinlYIwd2UdAKOIhaNGPvL/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)