Tenenbaum's Final Brief — $675K Award Too High

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The final brief (PDF) filed by the defendant Joel Tenenbaum in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum seems to put the final nail in the coffin on the RIAA's argument that 'statutory damages' up to $150,000 can be awarded where the record company's lost profit is in the neighborhood of 35 cents. Not only do Tenenbaum's lawyers accurately describe the applicable caselaw and scholarship, something neither the RIAA nor the Department of Justice did in their briefs, but they point out to the Court that the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit — the appeals court controlling this matter — has itself ruled that statutory damages awards are reviewable for due process considerations under the guidelines of State Farm v. Campbell and BMW v. Gore. The brief is consistent with the amicus curiae brief filed in the case last year by the Free Software Foundation."

Comments

Re:Only initial seeders liable?

[pookemon]

I'm intersted in knowing how RIAA know that he distributed the songs to "millions of people". And what was his share ratio on these songs? Eg. If his share ratio on these songs were 1,000,000 then it could be said that he's passed those songs onto a million people. If it were 1.5 then it can be said that he passed it on to 1 person and half of it onto another person (and then there'd need to be discussion as to how much was lost by passing half an MP3 onto someone).

Just my 2c.

Re:Fees

[Anonymous Coward]

If [Tenenbaum] doesn't get awarded fees, there would hopefully be thousands willing to pitch in to reimburse him for the precedent he bought us.

Holy Crap, that's the funniest thing I've read today. You don't actually believe that the pirate community would give up a single penny to support this do you?

One, and only one, of the following is true:
1. Anyone with reason to be sympathetic to Tenenbaum and his legal cause is by definition a pirate.
2. You're an idiot.

Re:Fees

[commodore64_love]

AND they are tired of getting screwed up the ass by dishonest corporations that refuse to offer a basic "satisfaction guaranteed" warranty. Hell even the chocolate bar companies offer that warranty ("If you are dissatisfied with your Snickers, return it for full refund.").

I grew tired of throwing-away my money on shitty CDs or boring movies, so now I try before I buy. If it's good I'll buy it to support the artists/engineers, but otherwise no.

Re:Fees

[commodore64_love]

Also even if said person is not financially ruined, it would take that citizen the rest of his life to earn the money to pay-back the cash fine. In effect it's a life sentence to slavery for RIAA, simply because the person didn't legally buy ~$30 worth of songs. That IS excessive.

Re:Distribution

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

NYCL, don't be a coward. Address my arguments

You're the coward hiding behind the cloak of anonymity and refusing to disclose your true identity, and what the axe is that you have to grind. Your motivations are quite suspect. You have some gall to call me a coward.

If you had any knowledge of the law you would know that Joel Tenenbaum doesn't tell the Court what the law is. The Court determines what the law is, and doesn't ask a 20-something non-lawyer who's a witness and party in a case what he thinks the law is and whether he thinks he violated it. And the law in this case is a statute that was enacted by Congress and signed by the President, which describes what a "distribution" is. And as you well know there was no evidence of the components of a violation of the 17 USC 106(3) distribution right. The testimony of a 20-something young adult that he "distributed" something is legally meaningless.