Fair Use Defense Dismissed In SONY V. Tenenbaum

Several readers sent us updates from the Boston courtroom where, mere hours before the start of trial, a federal judge ruled out fair use as a defense. Wired writes that "the outcome is already shaping up to resemble the only other file sharing trial," in which the RIAA got a $1.92M judgement against Jammie Thomas-Rassert. The defendant, Joel Tenenbaum, has already essentially admitted to sharing music files, and the entire defense put together by Harvard Prof. Charles Nesson and his students turned on the question of fair use. The judge wrote that the proposed defense would be "so broad it would swallow the copyright protections that Congress has created." Jury selection is complete and opening arguments will begin tomorrow morning. Here is the Twitter feed organized by Prof. Nesson's law students.

Comments

Before the arguments start?

[guruevi]

I wonder why judges are throwing out defenses before the defense could even bring out the arguments of their reasoning. Copying (downloading) music for personal purposes is considered fair use in many if not all European countries.

This seems like another bought off or pressured case.

gosh

[wasabii]

Man I don't get how people are so polarized about this. Look dudes. It's against the law to infringe copyrighted material. It's against the law to aid somebody else breaking the law. File sharing therefor is Against The Law. It is the Proper Decision for these people to be convicted. Anything else would make me think the judges were asleep at the wheel.

If you dislike that so much, don't focus on whether somebody wins or loses these cases. It is Proper that they lose. It would be Wrong if the law bent so much to allow what is clearly outlawed. Instead, seek to CHANGE the law. Donate to lobbyists. Become lobbyists yourself. Civil disobedience is fine, but don't expect to get off the hook for doing it until you change the law.

Re:gosh

[iamwahoo2]

It may be about sharing for you, but for me, it is hard to deal with the injustice of the system. I do not believe that you should ask from other what you are unwilling to ask of yourselves, and it pains me to see somebody get financially ruined for copyright infringement, knowing that most of us have been guilty of the same thing. How can this judge make this ruling, knowing that she has probably infringed on copyright at some point in her life and got away with it, and if by some small chance, she never infringed on copyright, then surely someone close to her has. What other law today is broken so oftenyet carries such a large penalty for those whom are caught? Copyright infringement is in a class by itself as the singular most unjust law in the Unites States.

A foolish defense

[Ammin]

Disproportionate statutory damages is the only reasonable defense; as others have pointed out, the RIAA gains ridiculous leverage because merely leaving a song upon eMule subjects you to thousands of dollars in phantom damages. Even if you ARE innocent, the risk/reward ratio allows the record mafia to shake you down simply because no one can risk the damages from losing.

Of course, the other obvious approach is to have Congress rewrite the statute to properly differentiate between a bootlegging operation with thousands of dollars in profit with counterfeit DVDs and some poor schmuck trying to get a few Mp3s.

Re:Judges over-ruling law...

[zippthorne]

I was going to mod you up, but then I remembered the nutrient that the tree of liberty thrives upon and became depressed.

The stupid and the lazy

[westlake]

The RIAA's "objection" came in the form of a new pool quietly installed in the judge's backyard, more than likely...

If I may be permitted to misquote Isaac Asimov:

Conspiracy theories are the last refuge of the incompetent.

It really isn't that hard to understand:

Under American law, the geek with a broadband connection doesn't have the right to a free digital download copy of WALL-E.

Nor does he have the right to upload his screener of the Transformers to 15,000 of his closest friends on the P2P nets.

The geek is cheap and he feeds on the thrill - and that is what lands him in court.

Netflix lists 100,000 DVDs and 2,000 Blu-Ray discs.

For about $15 a month he could build a substantial personal collection which would be of interest to no one so long as it remains within his home network.

Mind you, that's still a five fingered discount, and not Fair Use.