Ben Sisario, New York Times; Supreme Court Passes on File-Sharing Case, but Still No End Is in Sight:
"The Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal in one of the record industry’s longest-running cases over unauthorized file-sharing.
The court effectively let stand a jury’s $675,000 damages award against Joel Tenenbaum, a former Boston University student who admitted to downloading some 30 songs on the unlicensed file-sharing service Kazaa."
Showing posts with label Kazaa. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kazaa. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
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
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
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
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
Friday, June 19, 2009
Two losses and $1.9 million later, Thomas-Rasset remains defiant; Minneapolis Star Tribune, 6/19/09
Alex Ebert and Curt Brown via Minneapolis Star Tribune; Two losses and $1.9 million later, Thomas-Rasset remains defiant:
"Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the Recording Industry Association of America, said Friday the verdict should remind those who share music illegally about the penalties in copyright law. “For the few existing cases, this verdict is a reminder of the clarity of the law,” she said...
Not that [Jammie Thomas-Rasset] minds being a scapegoat. She thinks her case was a factor in the music industry’s decision to halt mass litigation against individuals accused of sharing music.
“I take a little bit of pride in the fact that at least I threw a monkey wrench into their litigation campaign,” Thomas-Rasset said."
http://www.startribune.com/local/48641077.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUHK:uUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU
"Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the Recording Industry Association of America, said Friday the verdict should remind those who share music illegally about the penalties in copyright law. “For the few existing cases, this verdict is a reminder of the clarity of the law,” she said...
Not that [Jammie Thomas-Rasset] minds being a scapegoat. She thinks her case was a factor in the music industry’s decision to halt mass litigation against individuals accused of sharing music.
“I take a little bit of pride in the fact that at least I threw a monkey wrench into their litigation campaign,” Thomas-Rasset said."
http://www.startribune.com/local/48641077.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUHK:uUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Jammie Thomas takes the stand, admits to major misstep; Ars Technica, 6/16/09
Nate Anderson via Ars Technica; Jammie Thomas takes the stand, admits to major misstep:
"Did she do it? That's for the jury to decide. But the bigger question is whether the process itself—the threat of life-altering damage awards, the hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, the time and exposure of a federal trial—is truly a proportional, equitable response to online copyright infringement?
Not even the judge who must preside over this case believes that the answer to that question is "yes." Writing an unusually pointed order granting Thomas-Rasset a new trial last year, Judge Michael Davis, Chief Justice of the Minnesota District Court, wrote these extraordinary words:
While the Court does not discount Plaintiffs’ claim that, cumulatively, illegal downloading has far‐reaching effects on their businesses, the damages awarded in this case are wholly disproportionate to the damages suffered by Plaintiffs. Thomas allegedly infringed on the copyrights of 24 songs—the equivalent of approximately three CDs, costing less than $54, and yet the total damages awarded is $222,000—more than five hundred times the cost of buying 24 separate CDs and more than four thousand times the cost of three CDs. While the Copyright Act was intended to permit statutory damages that are larger than the simple cost of the infringed works in order to make infringing a far less attractive alternative than legitimately purchasing the songs, surely damages that are more than one hundred times the cost of the works would serve as a sufficient deterrent...
The Court would be remiss if it did not take this opportunity to implore Congress to amend the Copyright Act to address liability and damages in peer‐ to‐peer network cases such as the one currently before this Court. The Court begins its analysis by recognizing the unique nature of this case. The defendant is an individual, a consumer. She is not a business. She sought no profit from her acts... The Court does not condone Thomas’s actions, but it would be a farce to say that a single mother’s acts of using Kazaa are the equivalent, for example, to the acts of global financial firms illegally infringing on copyrights in order to profit...
Despite his opinion, Davis may well preside over another guilty verdict this week; if so, he won't be able to throw it out thanks to a "making available" jury instruction this time around—a fact that perhaps accounts for his perpetual grumpy frown during the trial."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jammie-thomas-takes-the-stand-admits-to-major-misstep.ars
"Did she do it? That's for the jury to decide. But the bigger question is whether the process itself—the threat of life-altering damage awards, the hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, the time and exposure of a federal trial—is truly a proportional, equitable response to online copyright infringement?
Not even the judge who must preside over this case believes that the answer to that question is "yes." Writing an unusually pointed order granting Thomas-Rasset a new trial last year, Judge Michael Davis, Chief Justice of the Minnesota District Court, wrote these extraordinary words:
While the Court does not discount Plaintiffs’ claim that, cumulatively, illegal downloading has far‐reaching effects on their businesses, the damages awarded in this case are wholly disproportionate to the damages suffered by Plaintiffs. Thomas allegedly infringed on the copyrights of 24 songs—the equivalent of approximately three CDs, costing less than $54, and yet the total damages awarded is $222,000—more than five hundred times the cost of buying 24 separate CDs and more than four thousand times the cost of three CDs. While the Copyright Act was intended to permit statutory damages that are larger than the simple cost of the infringed works in order to make infringing a far less attractive alternative than legitimately purchasing the songs, surely damages that are more than one hundred times the cost of the works would serve as a sufficient deterrent...
The Court would be remiss if it did not take this opportunity to implore Congress to amend the Copyright Act to address liability and damages in peer‐ to‐peer network cases such as the one currently before this Court. The Court begins its analysis by recognizing the unique nature of this case. The defendant is an individual, a consumer. She is not a business. She sought no profit from her acts... The Court does not condone Thomas’s actions, but it would be a farce to say that a single mother’s acts of using Kazaa are the equivalent, for example, to the acts of global financial firms illegally infringing on copyrights in order to profit...
Despite his opinion, Davis may well preside over another guilty verdict this week; if so, he won't be able to throw it out thanks to a "making available" jury instruction this time around—a fact that perhaps accounts for his perpetual grumpy frown during the trial."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jammie-thomas-takes-the-stand-admits-to-major-misstep.ars
Monday, June 15, 2009
Music cos. vow to show Minn. woman shared 24 songs; Associated Press, 6/15/09
Steve Karnowski via Associated Press; Music cos. vow to show Minn. woman shared 24 songs:
"This case remains the only one out of more than 30,000 similar lawsuits the industry has filed that has made it to trial. The vast majority of the other defendants settled for an average of about $3,500 rather than risk huge judgments and legal bills. [Jammie] Thomas-Rasset's first lawyer put in nearly $130,000 worth of time for which she couldn't pay. Her new lawyers, [Kiwi] Camara and Joe Sibley, of Houston, took the case for free.
Thomas-Rasset lost her first trial in 2007 when jurors awarded the companies $222,000. But U.S. District Judge Michael Davis later concluded he made a mistake in his jury instructions and ordered the retrial.
This time, Davis is expected to instruct the jurors the record companies need to prove that someone actually downloaded the music Thomas-Rasset allegedly made available over the Internet on the Kazaa file sharing service. Last time, he told the jury the plaintiffs didn't have to prove anyone downloaded the copyright-protected songs.
The companies suing are subsidiaries of all four major recording companies, Warner Music Group Corp., Vivendi SA's Universal Music Group, EMI Group PLC and Sony Corp.'s Sony Music Entertainment.
Thomas, a mother of four and employee of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe tribal government, allegedly used Kazaa, a "peer-to-peer" file sharing service in which users make files on their own computers available for downloading by other users. Although the industry contends she made more than 1,700 songs available, for simplicity's sake it's trying to prove copyright violations on just a representative sample of only 24, including songs by Gloria Estefan, Sheryl Crow, Green Day and Journey."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h5cPHcxNbw61wli6CVCczuXJYgyQD98RETQG0
"This case remains the only one out of more than 30,000 similar lawsuits the industry has filed that has made it to trial. The vast majority of the other defendants settled for an average of about $3,500 rather than risk huge judgments and legal bills. [Jammie] Thomas-Rasset's first lawyer put in nearly $130,000 worth of time for which she couldn't pay. Her new lawyers, [Kiwi] Camara and Joe Sibley, of Houston, took the case for free.
Thomas-Rasset lost her first trial in 2007 when jurors awarded the companies $222,000. But U.S. District Judge Michael Davis later concluded he made a mistake in his jury instructions and ordered the retrial.
This time, Davis is expected to instruct the jurors the record companies need to prove that someone actually downloaded the music Thomas-Rasset allegedly made available over the Internet on the Kazaa file sharing service. Last time, he told the jury the plaintiffs didn't have to prove anyone downloaded the copyright-protected songs.
The companies suing are subsidiaries of all four major recording companies, Warner Music Group Corp., Vivendi SA's Universal Music Group, EMI Group PLC and Sony Corp.'s Sony Music Entertainment.
Thomas, a mother of four and employee of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe tribal government, allegedly used Kazaa, a "peer-to-peer" file sharing service in which users make files on their own computers available for downloading by other users. Although the industry contends she made more than 1,700 songs available, for simplicity's sake it's trying to prove copyright violations on just a representative sample of only 24, including songs by Gloria Estefan, Sheryl Crow, Green Day and Journey."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h5cPHcxNbw61wli6CVCczuXJYgyQD98RETQG0
Thomas retrial begins Monday: what to expect; Ars Technica, 6/14/09
Nate Anderson via Ars Technica; Thomas retrial begins Monday: what to expect:
Monday morning, the federal file-sharing trial of Jammie Thomas-Rasset begins, and Ars will be there with gavel-to-gavel coverage. Here's what you need to know to keep up:
"Last time around, the case took three days to hear; this time, the lawyers estimate that it will take five. If the retrial is anything like the first go-round, we should get a verdict quickly, though whether a jury will award the RIAA nearly $10,000 in damages per song again remains to be seen.
Whatever the verdict, [defense attorney Kiwi] Camara has already announced his intent to take on the recording industry's entire legal campaign. Along with Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson, Camara tells Ars that he plans to file a class-action lawsuit against the recording industry later this summer."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/thomas-retrial-begins-monday-what-to-expect.ars
Monday morning, the federal file-sharing trial of Jammie Thomas-Rasset begins, and Ars will be there with gavel-to-gavel coverage. Here's what you need to know to keep up:
"Last time around, the case took three days to hear; this time, the lawyers estimate that it will take five. If the retrial is anything like the first go-round, we should get a verdict quickly, though whether a jury will award the RIAA nearly $10,000 in damages per song again remains to be seen.
Whatever the verdict, [defense attorney Kiwi] Camara has already announced his intent to take on the recording industry's entire legal campaign. Along with Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson, Camara tells Ars that he plans to file a class-action lawsuit against the recording industry later this summer."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/thomas-retrial-begins-monday-what-to-expect.ars
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Minn woman who lost music-share suit gets replay; YahooNews.com, 6/13/09
Steve Karnowski, AP Writer, via YahooNews.com; Minn woman who lost music-share suit gets replay:
"The Minnesota woman who became the nation's only music file-sharing defendant so far to go to trial is getting a replay two years after losing the case.
Jammie Thomas-Rasset, a 32-year-old mother of four and self-described "huge music fan," will be armed with aggressive new lawyers when her retrial begins in federal court here Monday.
The lawsuit is among the last vestiges of an anti-piracy campaign that the recording industry ultimately dropped amid widespread criticism. The Recording Industry Association of America said in December it had stopped filing lawsuits like these and would work instead with Internet service providers to cut access to those it deems illegal file-sharers. But the recording industry plans to proceed with cases that are already filed.
Thomas-Rasset is the rare defendant who has fought back.
Music companies have filed more than 30,000 similar copyright lawsuits in recent years against people they accused of illegally swapping songs through Internet file-sharing services such as Kazaa. None of the others has made it to trial yet.
Faced with huge legal bills, most settled for an average of about $3,500, even if they insisted they had done nothing wrong. Thomas-Rasset's new lawyer, K.A.D. Camara, notes the settlements add up to more than $100 million; the RIAA contends its legal costs exceeded the settlement money it brought in.
The lawsuits have turned into a public relations nightmare for the recording industry, putting music companies in the position of going after their most ardent fans...
Corryne McSherry, a staff attorney with the digital-rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation, said the new defense team is taking a creative approach. She said it would have been interesting to see how all the cases that settled might have turned out if those defendants had free lawyers who were willing to push as hard.
"This case could end up being the tail end of a frankly shameful and certainly failed campaign to go after users," McSherry said."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090613/ap_en_ot/us_tec_music_downloading
"The Minnesota woman who became the nation's only music file-sharing defendant so far to go to trial is getting a replay two years after losing the case.
Jammie Thomas-Rasset, a 32-year-old mother of four and self-described "huge music fan," will be armed with aggressive new lawyers when her retrial begins in federal court here Monday.
The lawsuit is among the last vestiges of an anti-piracy campaign that the recording industry ultimately dropped amid widespread criticism. The Recording Industry Association of America said in December it had stopped filing lawsuits like these and would work instead with Internet service providers to cut access to those it deems illegal file-sharers. But the recording industry plans to proceed with cases that are already filed.
Thomas-Rasset is the rare defendant who has fought back.
Music companies have filed more than 30,000 similar copyright lawsuits in recent years against people they accused of illegally swapping songs through Internet file-sharing services such as Kazaa. None of the others has made it to trial yet.
Faced with huge legal bills, most settled for an average of about $3,500, even if they insisted they had done nothing wrong. Thomas-Rasset's new lawyer, K.A.D. Camara, notes the settlements add up to more than $100 million; the RIAA contends its legal costs exceeded the settlement money it brought in.
The lawsuits have turned into a public relations nightmare for the recording industry, putting music companies in the position of going after their most ardent fans...
Corryne McSherry, a staff attorney with the digital-rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation, said the new defense team is taking a creative approach. She said it would have been interesting to see how all the cases that settled might have turned out if those defendants had free lawyers who were willing to push as hard.
"This case could end up being the tail end of a frankly shameful and certainly failed campaign to go after users," McSherry said."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090613/ap_en_ot/us_tec_music_downloading
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, November 24, 2008
Film studios to become 'police, judge, executioner', Sydney Morning Herald, 11/24/08
Via Sydney Morning Herald: Film studios to become 'police, judge, executioner':
"ISPs argue that, like Australia Post with letters, they are just providing a service and should not be forced to become copyright police.
Conversely, the TV and movie industry want ISPs to disconnect people it has identified as repeat infringers. There would be no involvement from police or the courts and the industry would simply provide the IP addresses of users they believe to be illegal downloaders.
"To shift the burden of proof and require that ISPs terminate access to users upon mere allegations of infringement would be incredibly harmful to individual internet users in Australia," the online users lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia said.
"Every citizen has a right of due process under the law and, when faced with having their internet service terminated, every citizen has the right to ask that the case against them be proven first.""
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/biztech/film-studios-to-become-police-judge-executioner/2008/11/24/1227491443731.html
"ISPs argue that, like Australia Post with letters, they are just providing a service and should not be forced to become copyright police.
Conversely, the TV and movie industry want ISPs to disconnect people it has identified as repeat infringers. There would be no involvement from police or the courts and the industry would simply provide the IP addresses of users they believe to be illegal downloaders.
"To shift the burden of proof and require that ISPs terminate access to users upon mere allegations of infringement would be incredibly harmful to individual internet users in Australia," the online users lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia said.
"Every citizen has a right of due process under the law and, when faced with having their internet service terminated, every citizen has the right to ask that the case against them be proven first.""
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/biztech/film-studios-to-become-police-judge-executioner/2008/11/24/1227491443731.html
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Legal Jujitsu in a File-Sharing Copyright Case, New York Times, 11/18/08
Via New York Times: Legal Jujitsu in a File-Sharing Copyright Case:
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/legal-jujitsu-in-a-file-sharing-copyright-case/?scp=1&sq=copyright&st=cse
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/legal-jujitsu-in-a-file-sharing-copyright-case/?scp=1&sq=copyright&st=cse
Friday, November 7, 2008
Beckerman: RIAA's 'Vexatious' Charge Reeks with 'Falsehood and Fallacy', Wired.com, 11/07/08
Via Wired.com: Beckerman: RIAA's 'Vexatious' Charge Reeks with 'Falsehood and Fallacy'
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/11/beckerman-riaas.html
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/11/beckerman-riaas.html
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Judge Rejects 'Making Available' Defense, Orders Teen File Sharer to Pay RIAA $7,400 - Wired.com, 10/24/08
Via Wired.com:
Judge Rejects 'Making Available' Defense, Orders Teen File Sharer to Pay RIAA $7,400:
"The decision contradicts last month's mistrial ruling in the nation's only file sharing case to go to trial. The split outcomes underscore that, after five years of RIAA file sharing litigation and some 30,000 lawsuits, the level of proof necessary to demonstrate copyright infringement in the peer-to-peer context varies from judge to judge."
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/10/judge-rejects-m.html
Judge Rejects 'Making Available' Defense, Orders Teen File Sharer to Pay RIAA $7,400:
"The decision contradicts last month's mistrial ruling in the nation's only file sharing case to go to trial. The split outcomes underscore that, after five years of RIAA file sharing litigation and some 30,000 lawsuits, the level of proof necessary to demonstrate copyright infringement in the peer-to-peer context varies from judge to judge."
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/10/judge-rejects-m.html
Sunday, October 19, 2008
RIAA Decries Texas Woman as 'Vexatious' for Demanding File Sharing Trial - Wired.com, 10/17/08
RIAA Decries Texas Woman as 'Vexatious' for Demanding File Sharing Trial:
"The RIAA has agreed to accept $200 per track instead of the usual base of $750 under the Copyright Act because the woman is claiming an innocent infringement defense. The Copyright Act, which carries penalties of up to $150,000 per track, allows penalties as low as $200 for innocent infringement defenses — in this case a teenager claiming she was clueless about what she was doing."
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/10/riaa-decries-te.html
"The RIAA has agreed to accept $200 per track instead of the usual base of $750 under the Copyright Act because the woman is claiming an innocent infringement defense. The Copyright Act, which carries penalties of up to $150,000 per track, allows penalties as low as $200 for innocent infringement defenses — in this case a teenager claiming she was clueless about what she was doing."
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/10/riaa-decries-te.html
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
RIAA Appeals Jammie Thomas Mistrial - Wired.com, 10/15/08
RIAA Appeals Jammie Thomas Mistrial:
"The Recording Industry Association of America is appealing last month's decision in the Jammie Thomas case in which a judge declared a mistrial in the nation's only RIAA file sharing case to go to trial.
On Sept. 24, a Minnesota federal judge overturned a $222,000 judgment levied against the mother of three after concluding he erroneously told jurors that they could ding Thomas for copyright infringement solely for making copyrighted music available on the Kazaa file sharing network."
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/10/riaa-appealing.html
"The Recording Industry Association of America is appealing last month's decision in the Jammie Thomas case in which a judge declared a mistrial in the nation's only RIAA file sharing case to go to trial.
On Sept. 24, a Minnesota federal judge overturned a $222,000 judgment levied against the mother of three after concluding he erroneously told jurors that they could ding Thomas for copyright infringement solely for making copyrighted music available on the Kazaa file sharing network."
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/10/riaa-appealing.html
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Thomas Mistrial Decision Bolsters RIAA Litigation - Wired.com, 9/25/08
Thomas Mistrial Decision Bolsters RIAA Litigation:
"At first glance, the decision appeared to have deflated the RIAA's legal position, (.pdf) which has helped it prevail in almost every one of its 30,000 cases –- most all of which have settled out of court.
But almost in passing, Judge Davis said that the music files the RIAA investigators allegedly downloaded from Thomas' share folder on Kazaa "can form the basis of an infringement claim."
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/despite-thomas.html
"At first glance, the decision appeared to have deflated the RIAA's legal position, (.pdf) which has helped it prevail in almost every one of its 30,000 cases –- most all of which have settled out of court.
But almost in passing, Judge Davis said that the music files the RIAA investigators allegedly downloaded from Thomas' share folder on Kazaa "can form the basis of an infringement claim."
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/despite-thomas.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)