Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Awarded $675,000 In Tenenbaum Trial
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The jury awarded the record company plaintiffs $675,000 in the Boston trial defended by Prof. Charles Nesson, SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum. I was not surprised, since exactly none of the central issues ever even came up in this trial. The judge had instructed the jurors that Mr. Tenenbaum was liable, and that their only task was to come up with a verdict that was more than $22,500 and less than $4.5 million. According to the judge, her reason for doing so was that, when on the stand, the defendant was asked if he admitted liability, and he said 'yes.' The lawyers among you will know that that was a totally improper question, and that the Court should not have even allowed it, much less based her holding upon the answer to it."
bomb the damn HQ of the riaa already, where are the terrorists when you need them? fuck them
If the judge gets to decide the verdict (unless it's a not guilty verdict in a criminal case)? Why not let the judge consult with whomever he/she wants rather than the 12 jurors in this case? If jury trials are not necessary in civil cases, mandate judge trials. At least outrageous fines will become rare. But don't create a farce hidden by an appearance of a right to a jury trial.
For those of us who aren't lawyers, why was it improper?
I can't help but think there's some strategic reason for his actions that will become clearer upon appeal.
I've never heard stupidity described as strategic. The kid relies on a bunch of law students to draft up a dubious defense relying on fair use, then admits to committing the action that the Plaintiff alleges caused them a financial loss. I don't think I would approach a civil action in the same manner......
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Moral of the story: Just because some crazy-ass professor has "Harvard" next to his name does not mean he is going to magically get you off. Hell, from the looks of this case this Nesson guy should probably be brought up on sanctions for trying to turn this trial into a circus for his own fantasy-version of fair use. An attorney representing a client is supposed to act in the client's best interest, and not in the best-interest of his political cause. From what I've seen of this Nesson guy, his argument that P2P of complete copyrighted works constitutes "fair use" is completely ridiculous.. just see the four factors reiterated in Acuff-Rose case: There's no transformative use at all, these are all commercial works not some political diatribe, and the guy was distributing complete copyright works online. About his only defense is that he wasn't charging for the works, but that factor alone is never going to win. Oh, I'm sure this new "fair use" theory is popular with other faculty at Harvard and in some bizzaro academic enclaves, but in the real world it was a great way to get his client screwed over. Not that Nesson cares, it will just make for publishing fodder he can push out to a hapless law review that's more wowed by his "Harvard" credentials than by his complete lack of legal reasoning.
Oh, and pending my passage of the bar exam I finished two days ago, yes I will be a lawyer. I also went to a school with a much better copyright curriculum than whatever these jokers at Harvard are pushing.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
All excellent points. One other thing is that if the defendant's counsel (Nesson or otherwise) never objected to that question and did not properly preserve the objection for appeal, it might not be an appealable issue even if the question was improper.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
Umm, who the hell would know what a "tradeline" is? Just say credit limit; problem solved.
No reason for an "Umm."
Then I think you missed one:
I see no reason that file sharing would not easily meet that criteria, particularly if you are so anti-corporation that you try to claim a fair use defense because you are only distributing fragments of a file....
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Not so. First, copyright law has been around for a long time. What the RIAA has been attempting to do is extend copyrights far beyond any intent of its original foundations.
Copyright was never intended to give the copyright owner complete and full rights as though it were a piece of tangible property. The intent of copyright was to give the holder temporary rights to an original work, in order to give artists, writers, and other creators incentive to create... as opposed to simply letting all original works automatically be in the public domain. This incentive to create was (as is clearly stated in the law) intended to benefit the public, because after that temporary period was up, the work reverted to the public domain.
The period of copyright was originally much shorter: about the same as a patent... and if it is reasonable for a patent, it is also reasonable for copyright, for exactly the same reasons: it allows the creator to make money, while also benefiting the public.
The period is longer now because copyright holders (mainly large corporations) lobbied Congress to make it so, in order to profit from it more. It is now up to the life of the creator, plus 50 or 70 years or so... I forget exactly. Now, tell me: how does that benefit the public (the whole original purpose of copyrights)? Someone can write a book, and someone who was born the same year might never live to see it in the public domain! That does not fit very well into my definition of "temporary"!
I should also point out that letting original works and inventions automatically be in the public domain from the beginning has been tried in other countries, and guess what? You end up with a society that on the whole does not create, and does not innovate. (Think, "Soviet Union" during its heyday.)
The desire to work for one's own gain is powerful.
On the other hand, when works never (or almost never) revert to public domain, then you end up with a stratified society, in which the public does not benefit from creativity and innovation... exactly the opposite of what copyright law was intended to establish.
... So instead of having the government choose your healthcare, you prefer to have your job choose your healthcare? Instead of joining a plan that must care for everyone no matter what, you prefer to join a plan that can drop people whenever it chooses? Instead of having one open health care interoperability standard, you prefer to have every single healthcare provider roll their own? Then you can have the current American healthcare system, where most group coverage purchasers are too small to demand proper care for their employees, where health insurance plans will routinely deny first and even second requests just because they can, where the overhead of interoperating with so many different health care providers raises medical fees through the roof if you're paying out of pocket. How exactly is what we have right now better in any way whatsoever than any alternative? Hell, Singapore even shows that having no health care insurance at all can work out better than the piece of crap we have now.
Hey buddy, what do you call it when my premiums go up because *you* decided you could go without insurance?
It shifts the costs to everyone else. Is that fair? Is that the conservative way? Don't pay your fair share, and then when you get sick, screw your creditor (the hospital) and pass the costs along to the rest of society. Real nice.
The system is actually more efficient if the government administrates that. At least I will have the peace of mind that, along the way, if you made enough to pay in, you did, because you had to pay tax.
For a pretty awful example, and one that scared me as I'm self-employed and buy my own insurance, many people in my situation get denied coverage based on some ridiculously technical reading of their answers to the questions asked when you sign up for coverage. For example, there is an egregious example of a woman whose policy was canceled when she sought authorization for treatment for virulent type of breast cancer. The reason? She forgot to mention she had been treated for acne, her doctor misrecorded her condition, and even after the doctor called Blue Cross to clear up the matter, they wouldn't budge.
So we have a private insurance industry that will take your money and provide nothing in return. Even at the horrible DMV, you will eventually get your license, and they certainly don't try to murder you on a technicality. The notion that the free market is doing a good job at healthcare is simply not well founded in reality, and in fact it is doing SO badly, I think even the government would struggle to fail as epically as the private insurance industry.
In the end, if I can get the same crappy coverage I have now, for less cost and without the worry that I forgot to say I had the measles when I was 6 thus causing my entire policy to be canceled as a result (this is just robbery of premiums), I'd go for it. I just don't expect Congress to actually deliver something like that. They'll just force me to get robbed.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery. - Winston Churchill.
Let's cut straight to the chase: I get the impression that Americans are rabid individualists. They do not want a socialized health system tell them that they are not worth saving because others have higher priorities. They believe that an individual relying completely on themselves is responsible for their own well being. Socialized health care on the other hand understands that humanity has a dignity and if you are unjustly disadvantaged then you can still get treatment according to fairness with everyone else. Myself in particular: I have schizophrenia. I take $20CDN worth of medication for it every day. I cannot afford this medicine. My government subsidizes me based on individual need. If I was in the US I'd be living on the street talking to the birds. So, the conundrum for the US style of care is: what if you are incapable of caring for your self?
Shh.
America is the ONLY country in the first world that doesn't have nationalized health care.
The funny thing is, we DO have nationalized health care. 66% of the cost of health care in this country is paid for by medicaid, medicare, or federal government health care plans.
I DO NOT understand why people are so against nationalized health care here. It's already here. They play it up to be some sort of slippery slope, a plague that will infest every part of our lives and culture. Let me clue you in: the system is ALREADY IN PLACE, and the only people who benefit from the way things are now are the insurance and pharmaceutical companies.
~X
sig?
I suspect that RIAA knows that you will never pay and doesn't care. Their interest in this thing is to get huge judgments that will scare the shit out of the most normal people who do not in fact want to go bankrupt because of downloading a few songs.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.