Convicted file-sharer Joel Tenenbaum was originally ordered to pay record labels $675,000 in damages, and even though it was reduced to $67,500 for being “unconstitutionally excessive,” he says that even the reduced amount it “equally insane” and that it “only sounds reasonable because it was so much before.”
Last August Joel Tenenbaum was found guilty of copyright infringement for illegally distributing 30 copyrighted songs, and fined $22,500 p/work for a grand total of $675,000.
Tenenbaum’s attorney, Charles Nesson, immediately vowed to appeal the case on several grounds, some of those being, in his opinion, that downloading music without the copyright holder’s permission qualifies for “fair use” exemption from copyright laws, and if an individual file-sharer is not proven to have caused actual losses that they can’t be held liable for damages.
Tenenbaum offered a $21 counter offer, 70 cents for each of the copyrighted songs that would have otherwise went to the record label if he had bought them on iTunes. The RIAA, of course, did not respond.
On appeal those arguments fell to the wayside in favor of the determination that the $675,000 fine is “unconstitutionally excessive,” and it was subsequently reduced by 90% to $67,500.
“This copyright case raises the question of whether the Constitution’s Due Process Clause is violated by a jury’s award of $675,000 in statutory damages against an individual who reaped no pecuniary reward from his infringement and whose individual infringing acts caused the plaintiffs minimal harm,” wrote Judge Nancy Gertner.
She observed that the $67,500 still “adequately compensates” record labels for the “relatively minor harm that Tenenbaum caused them,” and that it also “sends a strong message” that those who illegally download and distribute copyrighted works “run the risk of incurring substantial damages awards.”
The RIAA was quick to decry the judgment and complain that the court had “substituted its judgment for that of 10 jurors as well as Congress” and the fact that the reduced judgment didn’t fully account for the “profound harm suffered by the music community precisely because of the activity that the defendant admitted engaging in.” It soon formally filed an appeal of the reduced judgment.
Tenenbaum is also fighting back, and argues that the reduced judgment is “equally insane.”
“Sixty-seven-and-half thousand dollars only sounds reasonable because it was so much before,” he said recently.
Nesson, his attorney, has filed a one-page notice saying he will appeal with the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. He said he plans to challenge several rulings Judge Gertner made at trial, one being her refusal to let jurors hear that Tenenbaum offered to settle the labels’ claims against him for $500 back in 2005.
@ zeropaid.com
Last August Joel Tenenbaum was found guilty of copyright infringement for illegally distributing 30 copyrighted songs, and fined $22,500 p/work for a grand total of $675,000.
Tenenbaum’s attorney, Charles Nesson, immediately vowed to appeal the case on several grounds, some of those being, in his opinion, that downloading music without the copyright holder’s permission qualifies for “fair use” exemption from copyright laws, and if an individual file-sharer is not proven to have caused actual losses that they can’t be held liable for damages.
Tenenbaum offered a $21 counter offer, 70 cents for each of the copyrighted songs that would have otherwise went to the record label if he had bought them on iTunes. The RIAA, of course, did not respond.
On appeal those arguments fell to the wayside in favor of the determination that the $675,000 fine is “unconstitutionally excessive,” and it was subsequently reduced by 90% to $67,500.
“This copyright case raises the question of whether the Constitution’s Due Process Clause is violated by a jury’s award of $675,000 in statutory damages against an individual who reaped no pecuniary reward from his infringement and whose individual infringing acts caused the plaintiffs minimal harm,” wrote Judge Nancy Gertner.
She observed that the $67,500 still “adequately compensates” record labels for the “relatively minor harm that Tenenbaum caused them,” and that it also “sends a strong message” that those who illegally download and distribute copyrighted works “run the risk of incurring substantial damages awards.”
The RIAA was quick to decry the judgment and complain that the court had “substituted its judgment for that of 10 jurors as well as Congress” and the fact that the reduced judgment didn’t fully account for the “profound harm suffered by the music community precisely because of the activity that the defendant admitted engaging in.” It soon formally filed an appeal of the reduced judgment.
Tenenbaum is also fighting back, and argues that the reduced judgment is “equally insane.”
“Sixty-seven-and-half thousand dollars only sounds reasonable because it was so much before,” he said recently.
Nesson, his attorney, has filed a one-page notice saying he will appeal with the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. He said he plans to challenge several rulings Judge Gertner made at trial, one being her refusal to let jurors hear that Tenenbaum offered to settle the labels’ claims against him for $500 back in 2005.
@ zeropaid.com