A Boston University student who just can't seem to get enough of file-sharing owes the RIAA hundreds of thousands of dollars for downloading a ton of music - again. Joel Tenenbaum's trial for file-sharing ended with a $675,000 jury verdict against him, but Judge Nancy Gertner slashed the award down to $67,500. The judge said at the time that the massive judgment violated the US Constitution and had to be reduced. The judge added that $67,500 was as high as was permissible under the law.
There seems to be some disagreement - as is usually the case - among judges hearing the case; on Friday the First Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the recording industry, who argued that Judge Gertner had leaped to the Constitutional question too quickly.
The Appeals Court wrote in its judgment that Gertner "should first have considered the non-constitutional issue of remittitur, which may have obviated any constitutional due process issue and attendant issues. Had the court ordered remittitur of a particular amount, Sony would have then had a choice. It could have accepted the reduced award. Or, it could have rejected the remittitur, in which case a new trial would have ensued."
The Appeals Court also said that it decision was procedurally proper but that it also didn't support the harsh penalties against Tenenbaum:
"We comment that this case raises concerns about application of the Copyright Act which Congress may wish to examine," wrote the judges.
Still, for now, Tenenbaum owes them $675,000.
Source: Ars Technica
Comments
Re: Appeals Court Sides with RIAA in Joel Tenenbaum Verdict
It's clearly the RIAA being idiots as usual. Maybe we should stop buying their music so they go bankrupt.
Re: Appeals Court Sides with RIAA in Joel Tenenbaum Verdict
Try buying your music, buddy. Who knows? It might just be cheaper and easier in the long run.
Andrew Eisen
Re: Appeals Court Sides with RIAA in Joel Tenenbaum Verdict
That's a pretty ignorant and cynical point of view. They're (RIAA/MPAA) trying to "send a message" to everyone by punishing Tenebaum for what he did and what everyone else did by extension. The amount awarded is insane, but the appeals court didn't think it was prudent to reduce it by constitutional means.
The law was never meant to be applied to individuals, because when the law was written, the technology didn't exist. Only publishing companies had the capability. The authors of the law had never imagined that individuals would be able to transmit art and knowledge so fast and easily as we do, or they wouldn't have such ridiculous statutory awards. That's what's really at issue here. Those damages were meant for big publishers that have lots of capital and required a large punitive award when the retail value of the works couldn't even begin to suffice as a punishment. To apply to individuals what was meant to apply to publishers is just insane. They're awarding more money than many people can make in their lifetimes. That just makes people lose all respect for copyright.
-Greevar
"Paste superficially profound, but utterly meaningless quotation here."
Re: Appeals Court Sides with RIAA in Joel Tenenbaum Verdict
My comment is neither ignorant nor cynical. It's merely a joking observation of an obvious truism.
Andrew Eisen
Re: Appeals Court Sides with RIAA in Joel Tenenbaum Verdict
On top of that, nobody respects copyright anymore anyway, apparently. Hence, why we have "boo-boos" like this.
Atlanta Video Games Examiner for examiner.com
Re: Appeals Court Sides with RIAA in Joel Tenenbaum Verdict
And, while I am not for copyright infringement, how about you clean out your laws rather than let incredibly stupid abuse like this stand and then proceed to impose those aberrations on the rest of the world?
Re: Appeals Court Sides with RIAA in Joel Tenenbaum Verdict
The laws don't need to be cleaned out as much as it needs to differentiate between individuals and operations. 24 songs that have potentially one download and one upload (48 total "infractions") shouldn't be $675,000 no matter what, especially when the only profit is the music files themselves.
The appeal court should give remittitur itself, or at least allow the original judge to give remittitur post facto. Although Joel Tenenbaum should just take this 675k because he'll just file bankrupcy and 7 years down the line be free of this mess that even the MPAA doesn't like.