Slashdot Mirror
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."
People just can't get past the notion that if something is easy and convenient, and makes life cheaper or better for them, they must have some kind of right to it. Even if it sucks the life and earnings out of the rightful owner of the thing. Even if the rightful owner is an evil, vicious old coot with a bad business model and overpriced products sold in musty old stores. None of that changes the fact that copyright violation by file sharing is pretty much like looting. Someone, maybe not you but someone, broke into the store, and now all the goods are available. You steal the product and destroy the business for your own benefit, happy in the relative anonymity of the crowd.
But people just can't see themselves as being wrong in doing it, because they benefit, and that *can't* be wrong, can it?
Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
Since the "distribution troll" is working this thread, I'll make this statement once: The distribution right in 17 USC 106(3) requires: -that it be by a sale, or other transfer of ownership, or by a rental, lease, or lending, AND -that it be to the public.
I believe Ray is referring to me, even though he adamantly refuses to name me or reply to my posts.
Tenenbaum admitted distribution on the stand, under oath. NYCL refuses to accept Tenenbaum's statements to the court and continues saying, "but where was the distribution? Where?!"
The distribution was proven by the defendant saying, "Hi, I'm Andrew Tenenbaum. I swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I distributed these songs." The end. That's why there was a directed verdict - but NYCL keeps trying to return to arguing whether infringement even occurred. This is incorrect - this trial is about damages, because infringement has already been proven.
NYCL, don't be a coward. Address my arguments without calling me a troll.
Cruel and unusual punishment doesn't really apply AFAIK. It doesn't matter whether a judgment is excessive or not when considering that prohibition.
No matter, the 8th amendment still proscribes these ridiculously large statutory damages:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Nobody in their right mind could possibly claim that these are not excessive fines. Case closed.