Joel Tenenbaum, (London) Guardian; Joel Tenenbaum: a year on from being sued for $4.5m: Last month, the RIAA shut down the peer-to-peer site Limewire. I was sued by the same organisation for sharing 30 songs online – 12 months on, my battle with them continues:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2010/nov/09/joel-tenenbaum-a-year-on
Showing posts with label Joel Tenenbaum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Joel Tenenbaum. Show all posts
Friday, November 12, 2010
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
"It is Groundhog Day": Third Jammie Thomas P2P trial begins; ArsTechnica.com, 11/2/10
Nate Anderson, ArsTechnica.com; "It is Groundhog Day": Third Jammie Thomas P2P trial begins:
"The reference, to the Bill Murray film in which the main character continually repeats one particular day, makes particular sense in this case. Thomas-Rasset was the first of the RIAA's litigation targets to take her case all the way to a trial and a verdict, but Judge Davis has twice tossed the results. In the first trial, a bad jury instruction was to blame; in the second, the jury returned a shocking $1.92 million verdict that Davis slashed to $54,000, calling it "monstrous." Neither side was pleased, however, and the recording industry asked for yet another trial, this one on damages alone."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/11/third-jammie-thomas-p2p-trial-begins-it-is-groundhog-day.ars
"The reference, to the Bill Murray film in which the main character continually repeats one particular day, makes particular sense in this case. Thomas-Rasset was the first of the RIAA's litigation targets to take her case all the way to a trial and a verdict, but Judge Davis has twice tossed the results. In the first trial, a bad jury instruction was to blame; in the second, the jury returned a shocking $1.92 million verdict that Davis slashed to $54,000, calling it "monstrous." Neither side was pleased, however, and the recording industry asked for yet another trial, this one on damages alone."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/11/third-jammie-thomas-p2p-trial-begins-it-is-groundhog-day.ars
Monday, June 21, 2010
First RIAA File Sharing Trial Morphs Into Groundhog Day; Wired.com, 6/21/1
David Kravets, Wired.com; First RIAA File Sharing Trial Morphs Into Groundhog Day:
"The nation’s first file sharing copyright infringement trial has morphed into a legal Groundhog Day.
In a bid two avoid a third trial — after two mistrials — the Minnesota federal judge presiding over the 4-year-old Jammie Thomas-Rasset case wants the Recording Industry Association of American and the defendant to negotiate a settlement.
But, as Thomas-Rasset’s attorney, Joe Sibley, said in a telephone interview Monday, a settlement is not likely to happen. The reason is both sides are a universe apart on what it would take to avoid a third trial.
That’s why there were two trials: neither party would budge during court-ordered negotiations: Under the latest failed negotiations, Thomas refused in January to pay anything. The RIAA wanted $25,000 for the 24 tracks two federal juries concluded she pilfered on Kazaa. That offer came after a second Minnesota jury had awarded $1.92 million, and the judge reduced it to $54,000 a year ago.
“There is nothing we have to offer they would be willing to accept,” Sibley said Monday. He added that Thomas-Rasset might agree to settle for the statutory minimum $750 a track.
“We’ve always hoped Ms. Thomas would accept responsibility and join us at the settlement table — especially after a judge and two different juries affirmed her clear liability. But her approach so far … does not make for productive settlement discussions,” RIAA spokeswoman Cara Duckworth said via an e-mail.
The Copyright Act allows a jury to award damages of up to $150,000 per purloined download. The Obama administration supported the nearly $2 million judgment.
U.S. District Judge Michael [Davis] [sic] declared the $1.92 million verdict “shocking” and said damage awards “must bear some relation to actual damages.”
Davis’ decision was the first time a judge has reduced the amount of damages in a Copyright Act case.
A third trial, scheduled for Oct. 4, would involve a jury assuming the woman’s liability and affixing a new damages figure.
Because of the posture of the case, the parties could not directly appeal the judge’s decision last year lowering the jury’s verdict. Assuming the judge reduces the damages again after the October trial, the appeals courts would be more inclined to take the case to avoid another day of legal ground hog, legal experts said.
Among the big bones of contention that would be addressed on appeal, Sibley claims damages under the Copyright Act are unconstitutionally excessive. The RIAA claims the judge did not have the power to lower a Copyright Act jury award.
Thomas-Rasset, of Brainerd, Minnesota, famously lost her first trial in 2007, resulting in a $222,000 judgment. But months after the four-day trial was over, Judge Davis declared a mistrial, saying he’d incorrectly instructed the jury that merely making copyrighted work available on a file sharing program constituted infringement, regardless of whether anybody downloaded the content.
He ordered both sides to the settlement table, where no deal was reached.
The only other file sharing case to have gone to trial resulted in a Boston jury in July awarding the RIAA $675,000 for 30 songs. A decision is pending on whether that award should be reduced.
Most of the thousands of RIAA file sharing cases against individuals settled out of court for a few thousand dollars."
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/filesharing-groundhog-day/#ixzz0rXbVpz00:
"The nation’s first file sharing copyright infringement trial has morphed into a legal Groundhog Day.
In a bid two avoid a third trial — after two mistrials — the Minnesota federal judge presiding over the 4-year-old Jammie Thomas-Rasset case wants the Recording Industry Association of American and the defendant to negotiate a settlement.
But, as Thomas-Rasset’s attorney, Joe Sibley, said in a telephone interview Monday, a settlement is not likely to happen. The reason is both sides are a universe apart on what it would take to avoid a third trial.
That’s why there were two trials: neither party would budge during court-ordered negotiations: Under the latest failed negotiations, Thomas refused in January to pay anything. The RIAA wanted $25,000 for the 24 tracks two federal juries concluded she pilfered on Kazaa. That offer came after a second Minnesota jury had awarded $1.92 million, and the judge reduced it to $54,000 a year ago.
“There is nothing we have to offer they would be willing to accept,” Sibley said Monday. He added that Thomas-Rasset might agree to settle for the statutory minimum $750 a track.
“We’ve always hoped Ms. Thomas would accept responsibility and join us at the settlement table — especially after a judge and two different juries affirmed her clear liability. But her approach so far … does not make for productive settlement discussions,” RIAA spokeswoman Cara Duckworth said via an e-mail.
The Copyright Act allows a jury to award damages of up to $150,000 per purloined download. The Obama administration supported the nearly $2 million judgment.
U.S. District Judge Michael [Davis] [sic] declared the $1.92 million verdict “shocking” and said damage awards “must bear some relation to actual damages.”
Davis’ decision was the first time a judge has reduced the amount of damages in a Copyright Act case.
A third trial, scheduled for Oct. 4, would involve a jury assuming the woman’s liability and affixing a new damages figure.
Because of the posture of the case, the parties could not directly appeal the judge’s decision last year lowering the jury’s verdict. Assuming the judge reduces the damages again after the October trial, the appeals courts would be more inclined to take the case to avoid another day of legal ground hog, legal experts said.
Among the big bones of contention that would be addressed on appeal, Sibley claims damages under the Copyright Act are unconstitutionally excessive. The RIAA claims the judge did not have the power to lower a Copyright Act jury award.
Thomas-Rasset, of Brainerd, Minnesota, famously lost her first trial in 2007, resulting in a $222,000 judgment. But months after the four-day trial was over, Judge Davis declared a mistrial, saying he’d incorrectly instructed the jury that merely making copyrighted work available on a file sharing program constituted infringement, regardless of whether anybody downloaded the content.
He ordered both sides to the settlement table, where no deal was reached.
The only other file sharing case to have gone to trial resulted in a Boston jury in July awarding the RIAA $675,000 for 30 songs. A decision is pending on whether that award should be reduced.
Most of the thousands of RIAA file sharing cases against individuals settled out of court for a few thousand dollars."
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/filesharing-groundhog-day/#ixzz0rXbVpz00:
Sunday, December 13, 2009
‘Missed Opportunity’ In File Sharing Case? Don’t Believe It; Wired, 12/8/09
David Kravets, Wired; ‘Missed Opportunity’ In File Sharing Case? Don’t Believe It:
"With the $675,000 judgment against Joel Tenenbaum now final, the inevitable finger pointing has begun.
Tenenbaum was only the second person in the nation to be sued by the RIAA for file sharing and to take the case all the way to jury trial, making it a closely watched case. It’s not surprising he lost, given that he admitted to sharing 30 songs on Kazaa and Limewire. But a few commentators have decided that Tenenbaum’s lawyer, Harvard’s Charles Nesson, is to blame for failing to offer the nuanced “fair use” defense invited by the judge...
What’s gone ignored, though, is that the defense invited by commentators and Judge Gertner wouldn’t have helped Nesson’s client in the least. Virtually none of the scenarios laid out in the ruling applied to 25-year-old Joel Tenenbaum, a classic copyright scofflaw who was neither space-shifting nor downloading music otherwise unavailable online.
“For the most part, he was downloading them and sharing them like the rest of the kids — and not particularly for sampling,” Nesson said in a telephone interview. “That is the bottom line.”...
Nesson’s performance wasn’t as stellar as it was in 1971, when he successfully defended Daniel Ellsberg in the Pentagon Papers case. Judge Gertner took the time to upbraid Nesson for his behavior.
“Defense counsel repeatedly missed deadlines, ignored rules, engaged in litigation over conduct that was plainly illegal (namely, the right to tape counsel and the Court without consent), and even went so far as to post the illegal recordings on the web,” Gertner wrote, adding that Nesson and his defense team of Harvard students mounted a “chaotic” defense.
But if he’d lied about the facts — making Ars Technica and the L.A. Times happy — his client would be no better off.
The other defendant to go against the RIAA before a jury is Jammie Thomas-Rasset. A Minnesota jury dinged her $1.92 million for 24 songs this summer after jurors concluded she lied on the stand, testifying that perhaps others, including her children, were the actual copyright scofflaws.
Copyright reform advocates are perennially frustrated that their perfectly reasonable ideas of what qualifies as “fair use” online don’t get a chance to be heard in court. That’s no coincidence — the RIAA isn’t going to take a case to trial if it might produce a pro-consumer ruling. But the armchair barristers blaming Nesson for failing to carry their reform message to the Tenenbaum court are misguided.
Regardless of whether the Copyright Act is flawed, or Nesson was out to lunch, the simple fact is the RIAA had Tenenbaum dead to rights."
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/nesson-2/#more-11854
"With the $675,000 judgment against Joel Tenenbaum now final, the inevitable finger pointing has begun.
Tenenbaum was only the second person in the nation to be sued by the RIAA for file sharing and to take the case all the way to jury trial, making it a closely watched case. It’s not surprising he lost, given that he admitted to sharing 30 songs on Kazaa and Limewire. But a few commentators have decided that Tenenbaum’s lawyer, Harvard’s Charles Nesson, is to blame for failing to offer the nuanced “fair use” defense invited by the judge...
What’s gone ignored, though, is that the defense invited by commentators and Judge Gertner wouldn’t have helped Nesson’s client in the least. Virtually none of the scenarios laid out in the ruling applied to 25-year-old Joel Tenenbaum, a classic copyright scofflaw who was neither space-shifting nor downloading music otherwise unavailable online.
“For the most part, he was downloading them and sharing them like the rest of the kids — and not particularly for sampling,” Nesson said in a telephone interview. “That is the bottom line.”...
Nesson’s performance wasn’t as stellar as it was in 1971, when he successfully defended Daniel Ellsberg in the Pentagon Papers case. Judge Gertner took the time to upbraid Nesson for his behavior.
“Defense counsel repeatedly missed deadlines, ignored rules, engaged in litigation over conduct that was plainly illegal (namely, the right to tape counsel and the Court without consent), and even went so far as to post the illegal recordings on the web,” Gertner wrote, adding that Nesson and his defense team of Harvard students mounted a “chaotic” defense.
But if he’d lied about the facts — making Ars Technica and the L.A. Times happy — his client would be no better off.
The other defendant to go against the RIAA before a jury is Jammie Thomas-Rasset. A Minnesota jury dinged her $1.92 million for 24 songs this summer after jurors concluded she lied on the stand, testifying that perhaps others, including her children, were the actual copyright scofflaws.
Copyright reform advocates are perennially frustrated that their perfectly reasonable ideas of what qualifies as “fair use” online don’t get a chance to be heard in court. That’s no coincidence — the RIAA isn’t going to take a case to trial if it might produce a pro-consumer ruling. But the armchair barristers blaming Nesson for failing to carry their reform message to the Tenenbaum court are misguided.
Regardless of whether the Copyright Act is flawed, or Nesson was out to lunch, the simple fact is the RIAA had Tenenbaum dead to rights."
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/nesson-2/#more-11854
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
[OpEd] An opportunity missed to apply 'fair use' to file sharing; LA Times, 12/7/09
[OpEd] LA Times; An opportunity missed to apply 'fair use' to file sharing:
"Joel Tenenbaum set out to become the standard-bearer for people who fight back against Recording Industry Assn. of America lawsuits, but he has come to symbolize fighting back the wrong way. After he admitted on the stand to downloading and sharing 30 songs -- contrary to what he'd claimed in a deposition -- a federal jury found the Boston University graduate liable in August for copyright infringement and ordered him to pay the labels $675,000. Today, the U.S. District Court judge who presided over the case, Nancy Gertner, issued a formal ruling explaining why she had rejected Tenenbaum's "fair use" defense. In a crisp indictment of Tenenbaum's legal team (which was led by notable copyright expert Charles Nesson from Harvard Law School), Gertner said she was prepared to consider a more expansive fair-use defense than other courts had entertained, but the defense blew it."
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2009/12/an-opportunity-missed-to-apply-fair-use-to-file-sharing.html
"Joel Tenenbaum set out to become the standard-bearer for people who fight back against Recording Industry Assn. of America lawsuits, but he has come to symbolize fighting back the wrong way. After he admitted on the stand to downloading and sharing 30 songs -- contrary to what he'd claimed in a deposition -- a federal jury found the Boston University graduate liable in August for copyright infringement and ordered him to pay the labels $675,000. Today, the U.S. District Court judge who presided over the case, Nancy Gertner, issued a formal ruling explaining why she had rejected Tenenbaum's "fair use" defense. In a crisp indictment of Tenenbaum's legal team (which was led by notable copyright expert Charles Nesson from Harvard Law School), Gertner said she was prepared to consider a more expansive fair-use defense than other courts had entertained, but the defense blew it."
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2009/12/an-opportunity-missed-to-apply-fair-use-to-file-sharing.html
Monday, December 7, 2009
How Team Tenenbaum missed a chance to shape P2P fair use law; Ars Technica, 12/7/09
Nate Anderson, Ars Technica; How Team Tenenbaum missed a chance to shape P2P fair use law:
A federal judge has made it official: P2P file-swapper Joel Tenenbaum is on the hook for $675,000. The real tragedy here, though, is what might have been, as the judge admits she was receptive to all kinds of limited fair use claims and again slams the record industry's lawsuit campaign.
"Federal judge Nancy Gertner today officially brought down the tent on the Joel Tenenbaum P2P Big Top World 'O Fun, all but admitting that she would have given Tenenbaum's arguments about "fair use" a truly sympathetic hearing were it not for the shoddy behavior of his legal team. What could have turned into a watershed case instead became another statutory crucifixion, with Gertner finally entering the jury's $675,000 verdict against the young file-swapper whose defense crashed down with an in-court admission that he had been lying all along.
Gertner signed off the jury's damage amounts, which means that Sony BMG is entitled to $112,500, Warner Bros. gets $225,000, Arista Records gets $45,000, and Universal picks up $292,500.
The record labels wanted more, though; specifically, they asked for an injunction against Tenenbaum that would stop him from "promot[ing]… using the Internet or any online media distribution system to infringe copyrights."
According to Gertner, "the word 'promote' is far too vague to withstand scrutiny under the First Amendment. Although plaintiffs are entitled to statutory damages, they have no right to silence defendant's criticism of the statutory regime under which he is obligated to pay those damages. This Court has neither the desire nor the authority to serve as the censor of defendant's public remarks regarding online file-sharing."...
Also remember that Gertner throughout has been quite a public critic of the music industry's lawsuit campaign. She continues that criticism in the memo, saying, "The Court, deeply concerned by the rash of file-sharing lawsuits, the imbalance of resources between the parties, and the upheaval of norms of behavior brought on by the Internet, did everything in its power to permit Tenenbaum to make his best case for fair use."...
"Rather than tailoring his fair use defense to suggest a modest exception to copyright protections, Tenenbaum mounted a broadside attack that would excuse all file-sharing for private enjoyment." By striking so broadly at the idea of copyright, Tenenbaum took the matter out of Gertner's hands. "Whether the widespread, unlimited file sharing that the record suggests he engaged in benefits the public more than our current copyright protections is a balance to be struck by Congress, not this Court," she concluded.
In addition, she singled out Nesson for criticism in a footnote to the memo. "Defense counsel repeatedly missed deadlines, ignored rules, engaged in litigation over conduct that was plainly illegal (namely, the right to tape counsel and the Court without consent), and even went so far as to post the illegal recordings to the Web." Examples of Nesson's bad behavior in the case "are legion."
And so we're left wondering what might have been. Tenenbaum can still contest the damage award, arguing that it was unconstitutionally excessive (papers on that claim are due in January), but "reducing a ridiculous damage award" is far less important than shoring up robust fair use rights."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/how-team-tenenbaum-missed-a-chance-to-shape-p2p-fair-use-law.ars
A federal judge has made it official: P2P file-swapper Joel Tenenbaum is on the hook for $675,000. The real tragedy here, though, is what might have been, as the judge admits she was receptive to all kinds of limited fair use claims and again slams the record industry's lawsuit campaign.
"Federal judge Nancy Gertner today officially brought down the tent on the Joel Tenenbaum P2P Big Top World 'O Fun, all but admitting that she would have given Tenenbaum's arguments about "fair use" a truly sympathetic hearing were it not for the shoddy behavior of his legal team. What could have turned into a watershed case instead became another statutory crucifixion, with Gertner finally entering the jury's $675,000 verdict against the young file-swapper whose defense crashed down with an in-court admission that he had been lying all along.
Gertner signed off the jury's damage amounts, which means that Sony BMG is entitled to $112,500, Warner Bros. gets $225,000, Arista Records gets $45,000, and Universal picks up $292,500.
The record labels wanted more, though; specifically, they asked for an injunction against Tenenbaum that would stop him from "promot[ing]… using the Internet or any online media distribution system to infringe copyrights."
According to Gertner, "the word 'promote' is far too vague to withstand scrutiny under the First Amendment. Although plaintiffs are entitled to statutory damages, they have no right to silence defendant's criticism of the statutory regime under which he is obligated to pay those damages. This Court has neither the desire nor the authority to serve as the censor of defendant's public remarks regarding online file-sharing."...
Also remember that Gertner throughout has been quite a public critic of the music industry's lawsuit campaign. She continues that criticism in the memo, saying, "The Court, deeply concerned by the rash of file-sharing lawsuits, the imbalance of resources between the parties, and the upheaval of norms of behavior brought on by the Internet, did everything in its power to permit Tenenbaum to make his best case for fair use."...
"Rather than tailoring his fair use defense to suggest a modest exception to copyright protections, Tenenbaum mounted a broadside attack that would excuse all file-sharing for private enjoyment." By striking so broadly at the idea of copyright, Tenenbaum took the matter out of Gertner's hands. "Whether the widespread, unlimited file sharing that the record suggests he engaged in benefits the public more than our current copyright protections is a balance to be struck by Congress, not this Court," she concluded.
In addition, she singled out Nesson for criticism in a footnote to the memo. "Defense counsel repeatedly missed deadlines, ignored rules, engaged in litigation over conduct that was plainly illegal (namely, the right to tape counsel and the Court without consent), and even went so far as to post the illegal recordings to the Web." Examples of Nesson's bad behavior in the case "are legion."
And so we're left wondering what might have been. Tenenbaum can still contest the damage award, arguing that it was unconstitutionally excessive (papers on that claim are due in January), but "reducing a ridiculous damage award" is far less important than shoring up robust fair use rights."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/how-team-tenenbaum-missed-a-chance-to-shape-p2p-fair-use-law.ars
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Record Labels Say Student Is Still Encouraging Illegal Downloads; New York Times, 9/3/09
Dave Itzkoff via New York Times; Record Labels Say Student Is Still Encouraging Illegal Downloads:
"The cautionary tale of Joel Tenenbaum continues. Weeks after he was ordered to pay $675,000 to record labels for illegally downloading and sharing music, those labels are saying that Mr. Tenenbaum, 25, a graduate student at Boston University, is continuing to encourage music piracy by linking to a file-sharing service on a Web site created for his defense, The Boston Globe reported. A Twitter feed for joelfightsback.com, a Web site run by Mr. Tenenbaum’s legal team, posted a link to the Swedish file-sharing service The Pirate Bay. That site, whose founders were convicted in April by a Swedish court of aiding in copyright violations, posted a playlist called “The $675,000 Mixtape,” which linked to the songs that Mr. Tenenbaum admitted to downloading illegally, and featured a photograph of Mr. Tenenbaum with his arms crossed. The Recording Industry Association of America has filed for an injunction that would order Mr. Tenenbaum to destroy his illegal files and stop promoting piracy. Mr. Tenenbaum said he had nothing to do with the song list on The Pirate Bay, and plans to appeal his verdict and fine."
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/record-labels-say-student-is-still-encouraging-illegal-downloads/?scp=2&sq=tenenbaum&st=cse
"The cautionary tale of Joel Tenenbaum continues. Weeks after he was ordered to pay $675,000 to record labels for illegally downloading and sharing music, those labels are saying that Mr. Tenenbaum, 25, a graduate student at Boston University, is continuing to encourage music piracy by linking to a file-sharing service on a Web site created for his defense, The Boston Globe reported. A Twitter feed for joelfightsback.com, a Web site run by Mr. Tenenbaum’s legal team, posted a link to the Swedish file-sharing service The Pirate Bay. That site, whose founders were convicted in April by a Swedish court of aiding in copyright violations, posted a playlist called “The $675,000 Mixtape,” which linked to the songs that Mr. Tenenbaum admitted to downloading illegally, and featured a photograph of Mr. Tenenbaum with his arms crossed. The Recording Industry Association of America has filed for an injunction that would order Mr. Tenenbaum to destroy his illegal files and stop promoting piracy. Mr. Tenenbaum said he had nothing to do with the song list on The Pirate Bay, and plans to appeal his verdict and fine."
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/record-labels-say-student-is-still-encouraging-illegal-downloads/?scp=2&sq=tenenbaum&st=cse
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Podcast [7 min. 56 sec.]: $675K fine for music downloads; CNN, 8/4/09
Podcast [7 min. 56 sec.]: $675K fine for music downloads:
A college student who shared music he downloaded talks about the $675,000 fine:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2009/08/04/am.tenenbaum.music.fine.cnn
A college student who shared music he downloaded talks about the $675,000 fine:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2009/08/04/am.tenenbaum.music.fine.cnn
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Oy Tenenbaum! RIAA wins $675,000, or $22,500 per song; Ars Technica, 7/31/09
Ben Sheffner via Ars Technica; Oy Tenenbaum! RIAA wins $675,000, or $22,500 per song:
After a brief deliberation, a federal jury has ruled that PhD student Joel Tenenbaum willfully infringed on the record labels' copyrights, awarding them $675,000 in damages, $22,500 for each of the 30 songs in question. Ars reports with reaction from Tenenbaum and his attorney, Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson.
"A Boston federal jury has ordered Joel Tenenbaum to pay a total of $675,000—$22,500 per song—to the major record labels for willfully infringing 30 songs by downloading and distributing them over the KaZaA peer-to-peer network. The figure is closer to the $222,000 award in the first Jammie Thomas-Rasset trial than the $1.92 million figure from the second trial.
The verdict came down at late Friday afternoon after a little more than three hours of deliberation."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/o-tenenbaum-riaa-wins-675000-or-22500-per-song.ars
After a brief deliberation, a federal jury has ruled that PhD student Joel Tenenbaum willfully infringed on the record labels' copyrights, awarding them $675,000 in damages, $22,500 for each of the 30 songs in question. Ars reports with reaction from Tenenbaum and his attorney, Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson.
"A Boston federal jury has ordered Joel Tenenbaum to pay a total of $675,000—$22,500 per song—to the major record labels for willfully infringing 30 songs by downloading and distributing them over the KaZaA peer-to-peer network. The figure is closer to the $222,000 award in the first Jammie Thomas-Rasset trial than the $1.92 million figure from the second trial.
The verdict came down at late Friday afternoon after a little more than three hours of deliberation."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/o-tenenbaum-riaa-wins-675000-or-22500-per-song.ars
Friday, July 31, 2009
Judge: Tenenbaum guilty of copyright infringement; Ars Technica, 7/30/09
Eric Bangemen via Ars Technica; Judge: Tenenbaum guilty of copyright infringement:
"In a reversal of her decision Thursday night, Judge Nancy Gertner has issued a directed verdict against P2P defendant Joel Tenenbaum, ruling that he is liable for infringing the record labels' copyrights on all 30 of the songs in question. It will be up to the jury to determine whether the infringement was willful and the size of the award—which could be as high as $4.5 million.
Judge Gertner's change of heart came after she had a chance to review the transcript of Thursday's testimony by Joel Tenenbaum. During direct examination, Tenenbaum was asked a simple question by the labels' counsel: "on the stand now, are you admitting liability for downloading and distributing all 30 sound recordings that are at issue and listed on Exhibits 55 and 56 of the exhibits?" His simple "yes" answer was enough to hand the labels a victory on the question of liability...
For all of the theatrics in the months leading up to the trial, things have gone down differently since the trial started Monday morning. Judge Gertner eviscerated Tenenbaum's Fair Use defense right before things got underway, and it has been all downhill from there for the defendant. Should the jury throw the book at Tenenbaum on the issue of damages, his counsel, Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson, will challenge the constitutionality of the damage provisions of the Copyright Act. But that's another chapter; this one is all but written."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/judge-tenenbaum-guilty-of-copyright-infringement.ars
"In a reversal of her decision Thursday night, Judge Nancy Gertner has issued a directed verdict against P2P defendant Joel Tenenbaum, ruling that he is liable for infringing the record labels' copyrights on all 30 of the songs in question. It will be up to the jury to determine whether the infringement was willful and the size of the award—which could be as high as $4.5 million.
Judge Gertner's change of heart came after she had a chance to review the transcript of Thursday's testimony by Joel Tenenbaum. During direct examination, Tenenbaum was asked a simple question by the labels' counsel: "on the stand now, are you admitting liability for downloading and distributing all 30 sound recordings that are at issue and listed on Exhibits 55 and 56 of the exhibits?" His simple "yes" answer was enough to hand the labels a victory on the question of liability...
For all of the theatrics in the months leading up to the trial, things have gone down differently since the trial started Monday morning. Judge Gertner eviscerated Tenenbaum's Fair Use defense right before things got underway, and it has been all downhill from there for the defendant. Should the jury throw the book at Tenenbaum on the issue of damages, his counsel, Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson, will challenge the constitutionality of the damage provisions of the Copyright Act. But that's another chapter; this one is all but written."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/judge-tenenbaum-guilty-of-copyright-infringement.ars
Tenenbaum takes the stand: I used P2P and lied about it; Ars Technica, 7/30/09
Ben Sheffner via Ars Technica; Tenenbaum takes the stand: I used P2P and lied about it:
"Accused of sharing 30 songs on the Internet, Joel Tenenbaum today admitted his liability in a federal courtroom, then told the court he told a "lie" in his earlier sworn responses. The labels have moved for a directed verdict of copyright infringement, and look likely to get it.
“Joel Fights Back,” proclaims the website for Joel Tenenbaum, the Boston University grad student standing trial for copyright infringement this week in a federal courtroom. But today, when he took the stand at his closely watched copyright trial, he didn’t.
Instead, over and over, Tenenbaum admitted under oath that he used KaZaA, LimeWire, and other peer-to-peer software to download and distribute music to others unknown.
“This is me. I’m here to answer,” said Tenenbaum. “I used the computer. I uploaded and downloaded music. This is how it is. I did it,” he testified before a packed courtroom, whose spectators included an all-star cast of Harvard Law School copyright scholars: Lawrence Lessig, John Palfrey, and Jonathan Zittrain.
“Are you admitting liability for all 30 sound recordings” on which the record labels brought suit, asked the plaintiffs’ attorney Tim Reynolds.
“Yes,” said Tenenbaum.
Tenenbaum then admitted that he “lied” in his written discovery responses, the ones in which he denied responsibility.
“Why did you lie at that point?” asked Tenenbaum’s attorney, Harvard Law School professor Charles Nesson. “It was kind of something I rushed through,” responded Tenenbaum. “It’s what seemed the best response to give.” At the time he gave the admittedly false discovery responses, Tenenbaum testified that he was being advised by his mother Judith, a family law attorney who works for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/tenenbaum-takes-the-stand-i-used-p2p-and-lied-about-it.ars
"Accused of sharing 30 songs on the Internet, Joel Tenenbaum today admitted his liability in a federal courtroom, then told the court he told a "lie" in his earlier sworn responses. The labels have moved for a directed verdict of copyright infringement, and look likely to get it.
“Joel Fights Back,” proclaims the website for Joel Tenenbaum, the Boston University grad student standing trial for copyright infringement this week in a federal courtroom. But today, when he took the stand at his closely watched copyright trial, he didn’t.
Instead, over and over, Tenenbaum admitted under oath that he used KaZaA, LimeWire, and other peer-to-peer software to download and distribute music to others unknown.
“This is me. I’m here to answer,” said Tenenbaum. “I used the computer. I uploaded and downloaded music. This is how it is. I did it,” he testified before a packed courtroom, whose spectators included an all-star cast of Harvard Law School copyright scholars: Lawrence Lessig, John Palfrey, and Jonathan Zittrain.
“Are you admitting liability for all 30 sound recordings” on which the record labels brought suit, asked the plaintiffs’ attorney Tim Reynolds.
“Yes,” said Tenenbaum.
Tenenbaum then admitted that he “lied” in his written discovery responses, the ones in which he denied responsibility.
“Why did you lie at that point?” asked Tenenbaum’s attorney, Harvard Law School professor Charles Nesson. “It was kind of something I rushed through,” responded Tenenbaum. “It’s what seemed the best response to give.” At the time he gave the admittedly false discovery responses, Tenenbaum testified that he was being advised by his mother Judith, a family law attorney who works for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/tenenbaum-takes-the-stand-i-used-p2p-and-lied-about-it.ars
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Tenenbaum lawyer admits liability; damages now main issue; Ars Technica, 7/29/09
Nate Anderson via Ars Technica; Tenenbaum lawyer admits liability; damages now main issue: The second-ever P2P file-sharing case to go to trial has been anything but conventional, and today was no exception: one of Joel Tenenbaum's attorneys admitted in court that his client was liable for infringement. The real issue now appears to be the amount of damages.:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/tenebaum-day-three.ars
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/tenebaum-day-three.ars
Monday, July 27, 2009
Judge rejects fair use defense as Tenenbaum P2P trial begins; Ars Technica, 7/27/09
Nate Anderson via Ars Technica; Judge rejects fair use defense as Tenenbaum P2P trial begins: Hours before the second P2P file-sharing trial in the US gets underway, the judge finally rules that defendant Joel Tenenbaum cannot claim "fair use" in the case. The proposed defense would be "so broad it would swallow the copyright protections that Congress has created," she wrote:
"There will be no fair use defense for Joel Tenenbaum at trial this week...
That won't happen, because Judge Gertner this morning granted the record labels' request for summary judgment on the issue of fair use. Noting that defendants only have the right to a jury trial when there are material facts in dispute, Gertner went on to point out that Tenenbaum has admitted to the activity in question and that she may therefore rule on the issue of fair use as a matter of law...
Gertner has been no fan of the labels' litigation campaign, telling industry lawyers in the past that they were "basically bankrupting people, and it's terribly critical that you stop it."
But that hasn't stopped her from taking on Team Tenenbaum's attempt to eviscerate copyright. As Nesson wrote in his pretrial outline of the case, "the idea of imposing law on the global ocean of free bits that has flooded into cyberspace is a gross and harmful over-extension of the power of the state and authority of the law." Gertner, whatever her own feelings on these kinds of cases, sees clearly that such claims amount to abolition of copyright in the digital age and are at odds with the law as currently written."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/judge-rejects-fair-use-defense-as-tenenbaum-p2p-trial-begins.ars
"There will be no fair use defense for Joel Tenenbaum at trial this week...
That won't happen, because Judge Gertner this morning granted the record labels' request for summary judgment on the issue of fair use. Noting that defendants only have the right to a jury trial when there are material facts in dispute, Gertner went on to point out that Tenenbaum has admitted to the activity in question and that she may therefore rule on the issue of fair use as a matter of law...
Gertner has been no fan of the labels' litigation campaign, telling industry lawyers in the past that they were "basically bankrupting people, and it's terribly critical that you stop it."
But that hasn't stopped her from taking on Team Tenenbaum's attempt to eviscerate copyright. As Nesson wrote in his pretrial outline of the case, "the idea of imposing law on the global ocean of free bits that has flooded into cyberspace is a gross and harmful over-extension of the power of the state and authority of the law." Gertner, whatever her own feelings on these kinds of cases, sees clearly that such claims amount to abolition of copyright in the digital age and are at odds with the law as currently written."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/judge-rejects-fair-use-defense-as-tenenbaum-p2p-trial-begins.ars
Monday, July 20, 2009
Tenenbaum circus enters big top next week; what to expect; Ars Technica, 7/20/09
Nate Anderson via Ars Technica; Tenenbaum circus enters big top next week; what to expect: The second US trial of a file swapping defendant begins next Monday in Boston. Ars previews the arguments to be used by graduate student Joel Tenenbaum and by the recording industry:
"The second full trial of a US peer-to-peer file swapper begins next week. Sublimeguy14@KaZaA (aka Joel Tenenbaum, a Boston College grad student) will make his way through the marble corridors of Boston's federal courthouse next Monday to face a set of RIAA lawyers who are fresh from a $1.92 million victory in the Jammie Thomas-Rasset case and eager to go 2-0 in such prosecutions.
But Tenenbaum has a secret weapon—Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson, who will argue that the 816 songs in Tenenbaum's KaZaA share folder back in 2004 were simply a "fair use" of the recording industry's protected work."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/tenenbaum-circus-enters-big-top-next-week-what-to-expect.ars
"The second full trial of a US peer-to-peer file swapper begins next week. Sublimeguy14@KaZaA (aka Joel Tenenbaum, a Boston College grad student) will make his way through the marble corridors of Boston's federal courthouse next Monday to face a set of RIAA lawyers who are fresh from a $1.92 million victory in the Jammie Thomas-Rasset case and eager to go 2-0 in such prosecutions.
But Tenenbaum has a secret weapon—Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson, who will argue that the 816 songs in Tenenbaum's KaZaA share folder back in 2004 were simply a "fair use" of the recording industry's protected work."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/tenenbaum-circus-enters-big-top-next-week-what-to-expect.ars
Monday, June 29, 2009
Play it again: Tenenbaum team tries to toss MediaSentry evidence; Ars Technica, 6/29/09
Nate Anderson via Ars Technica; Play it again: Tenenbaum team tries to toss MediaSentry evidence:
"The year's second major P2P trial kicks off in one month, and Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson wants to mount some of the same attacks that failed in the first case. Nesson argues that all of the RIAA's MediaSentry investigative evidence must be banned from trial, as the company violated wiretap law and private detective licensing law."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/second-times-the-charm-tenenbaum-team-try-to-toss-mediasentry-evidence.ars
"The year's second major P2P trial kicks off in one month, and Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson wants to mount some of the same attacks that failed in the first case. Nesson argues that all of the RIAA's MediaSentry investigative evidence must be banned from trial, as the company violated wiretap law and private detective licensing law."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/second-times-the-charm-tenenbaum-team-try-to-toss-mediasentry-evidence.ars
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Judge Bars the Internet From the Courtroom in a File-Sharing Case; Chronicle of Higher Education, The Wired Campus, 4/17/09
Chronicle of Higher Education, The Wired Campus: Judge Bars the Internet From the Courtroom in a File-Sharing Case:
"Charles Nesson, a Harvard Law School professor, had asked to Webcast a court hearing in the case against his client Joel Tenenbaum, a graduate student at Boston University whom Sony BMG Music Entertainment sued for copyright infringement. The presiding federal judge, Nancy Gertner, approved the request in January. But the recording industry, fearing that the hearing in U.S. District Court in Boston would become a circus, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Today, that court barred the Webcast, which was to be recorded by the Courtroom View Network and carried gavel to gavel by Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society. Judicial rules close federal courtrooms in Massachusetts to all forms of broadcasting, including Webcasting, Judge Bruce M. Selya wrote in the ruling."
http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=3720&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en
"Charles Nesson, a Harvard Law School professor, had asked to Webcast a court hearing in the case against his client Joel Tenenbaum, a graduate student at Boston University whom Sony BMG Music Entertainment sued for copyright infringement. The presiding federal judge, Nancy Gertner, approved the request in January. But the recording industry, fearing that the hearing in U.S. District Court in Boston would become a circus, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Today, that court barred the Webcast, which was to be recorded by the Courtroom View Network and carried gavel to gavel by Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society. Judicial rules close federal courtrooms in Massachusetts to all forms of broadcasting, including Webcasting, Judge Bruce M. Selya wrote in the ruling."
http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=3720&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en
Monday, January 19, 2009
RIAA pulls out of John Doe cases involving college students, Ars Technica, 1/19/09
Via Ars Technica, RIAA pulls out of John Doe cases involving college students:
"With these and other cases being wrapped up, there are only a couple of high-profile remnants of the industry's war against P2P users left on the agenda. One is the scheduled retrial of Jammie Thomas later this year; the other is the case against Joel Tenenbaum, who is being represented by Harvard Law School professor Charles Nesson and a host of students. The RIAA feels confident about the evidence it has in the Thomas case and its chances for a victory in a second trial, but whether it has the stomach to actually go through with it remains to be seen. The Tenenbaum case is shaping up to be another PR nightmare with the RIAA, as Nesson recently convinced the presiding judge to stream the court proceedings online, a decision the RIAA is anxious to see overturned."
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20090119-riaa-pulls-out-of-john-doe-cases-involving-college-students.html
"With these and other cases being wrapped up, there are only a couple of high-profile remnants of the industry's war against P2P users left on the agenda. One is the scheduled retrial of Jammie Thomas later this year; the other is the case against Joel Tenenbaum, who is being represented by Harvard Law School professor Charles Nesson and a host of students. The RIAA feels confident about the evidence it has in the Thomas case and its chances for a victory in a second trial, but whether it has the stomach to actually go through with it remains to be seen. The Tenenbaum case is shaping up to be another PR nightmare with the RIAA, as Nesson recently convinced the presiding judge to stream the court proceedings online, a decision the RIAA is anxious to see overturned."
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20090119-riaa-pulls-out-of-john-doe-cases-involving-college-students.html
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
RI judge hears arguments in music downloading case, Sydney Morning Herald, 1/7/09
Via Sydney Morning Herald: RI judge hears arguments in music downloading case:
"A Rhode Island couple whose son is accused of illegally sharing songs online should not be forced to surrender their home computer for inspection because it would violate their right to privacy, their lawyer argued at a federal court hearing Tuesday...
Record company lawyers believe Tenenbaum downloaded the songs on his parents' computer in Providence and urged a federal magistrate on Tuesday for permission to copy the machine's hard drive for proof of copyright infringement...
But Charles Nesson, a Harvard Law School professor representing Arthur and Judie Tenenbaum and their son, said the computer contains information protected by attorney-client privilege and holds other sensitive and personal material that has nothing to do with the case."
http://news.smh.com.au/technology/ri-judge-hears-arguments-in-music-downloading-case-20090108-7c3z.html
"A Rhode Island couple whose son is accused of illegally sharing songs online should not be forced to surrender their home computer for inspection because it would violate their right to privacy, their lawyer argued at a federal court hearing Tuesday...
Record company lawyers believe Tenenbaum downloaded the songs on his parents' computer in Providence and urged a federal magistrate on Tuesday for permission to copy the machine's hard drive for proof of copyright infringement...
But Charles Nesson, a Harvard Law School professor representing Arthur and Judie Tenenbaum and their son, said the computer contains information protected by attorney-client privilege and holds other sensitive and personal material that has nothing to do with the case."
http://news.smh.com.au/technology/ri-judge-hears-arguments-in-music-downloading-case-20090108-7c3z.html
Monday, December 29, 2008
Harvard Team Asks Court To Allow Live Broadcast Of Tenenbaum Case Against RIAA, TechDirt.com, 12/29/08
Via TechDirt.com: Harvard Team Asks Court To Allow Live Broadcast Of Tenenbaum Case Against RIAA:
"A bunch of folks have sent in the story that Charles Nesson of Harvard, who is challenging the constitutionality of the RIAA's lawsuits against file sharers, has filed a motion asking that the trial be broadcast live over the internet, amusingly using the RIAA's own words to support his request. From the beginning, the RIAA has always insisted that its lawsuits were part of a broad "educational campaign" to teach people about the evils of file sharing."
http://techdirt.com/articles/20081229/0144443229.shtml
"A bunch of folks have sent in the story that Charles Nesson of Harvard, who is challenging the constitutionality of the RIAA's lawsuits against file sharers, has filed a motion asking that the trial be broadcast live over the internet, amusingly using the RIAA's own words to support his request. From the beginning, the RIAA has always insisted that its lawsuits were part of a broad "educational campaign" to teach people about the evils of file sharing."
http://techdirt.com/articles/20081229/0144443229.shtml
Monday, December 22, 2008
The RIAA’s prosecution of copyright law is unconstitutional, Mass High Tech, 11/28/08
By Charles Nesson, Esq., William F. Weld Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and founder of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Via Mass High Tech: The RIAA’s prosecution of copyright law is unconstitutional:
"We believe, and are asserting legally by counterclaim, that the RIAA litigation campaign against Joel [Tenenbaum] and the millions of his generation like him is an unconstitutional abuse of law. Imagine a statute which, in the name of deterrence, provides for a $750 fine for each mile-per-hour that a driver exceeds the speed limit, with the fine escalating to $150,000 per mile over the limit if the driver knew he or she was speeding. Imagine that the fines are not publicized, and most drivers do not know they exist. Imagine that enforcement of the fines is put in the hands of a private, self-interested police force, that has no political accountability, that can pursue any defendant it chooses at its own whim, that can accept or reject payoffs on the order of $3,000 to $7,000 in exchange for not prosecuting the tickets, and that pockets for itself all payoffs and fines. Imagine that a significant percentage of these fines were never contested, regardless of whether they had merit, because the individuals being fined have limited financial resources and little idea of whether they can prevail in front of a federal court...
Tenenbaum is, in every way, representative of his born-digital generation. The tension remains that our antiquated legal system has not caught up to the social reality of digital natives, a term my colleague John Palfrey coined to describe the generation that grew up immersed in digital technologies and for whom a life fully integrated with digital devices that are, by design, free and open is the norm."
http://www.masshightech.com/stories/2008/11/24/editorial2-The-RIAAs-prosecution-of-copyright-law-is-unconstitutional.html
"We believe, and are asserting legally by counterclaim, that the RIAA litigation campaign against Joel [Tenenbaum] and the millions of his generation like him is an unconstitutional abuse of law. Imagine a statute which, in the name of deterrence, provides for a $750 fine for each mile-per-hour that a driver exceeds the speed limit, with the fine escalating to $150,000 per mile over the limit if the driver knew he or she was speeding. Imagine that the fines are not publicized, and most drivers do not know they exist. Imagine that enforcement of the fines is put in the hands of a private, self-interested police force, that has no political accountability, that can pursue any defendant it chooses at its own whim, that can accept or reject payoffs on the order of $3,000 to $7,000 in exchange for not prosecuting the tickets, and that pockets for itself all payoffs and fines. Imagine that a significant percentage of these fines were never contested, regardless of whether they had merit, because the individuals being fined have limited financial resources and little idea of whether they can prevail in front of a federal court...
Tenenbaum is, in every way, representative of his born-digital generation. The tension remains that our antiquated legal system has not caught up to the social reality of digital natives, a term my colleague John Palfrey coined to describe the generation that grew up immersed in digital technologies and for whom a life fully integrated with digital devices that are, by design, free and open is the norm."
http://www.masshightech.com/stories/2008/11/24/editorial2-The-RIAAs-prosecution-of-copyright-law-is-unconstitutional.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)