Slashdot Mirror


New Judge Assigned To Tenenbaum Case Upholds $675k Verdict

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In SONY v Tenenbaum, the new District Judge assigned to the case has disagreed with the previous judge, and instead of reducing the $22,500 per file award to $2250 per file, has instead upheld the jury's verdict. The jury initially found defendant Joel Tenenbaum to have 'willfully' infringed the RIAA copyrights by downloading 30 mp3 files which would normally retail for 99 cents each, and awarded the plaintiff record companies $675,000 in 'statutory damages.' Tenenbaum moved to set the verdict aside on both common law remittitur grounds and constitutional due process grounds. Judge Gertner — the District Judge at the time — felt that remittitur would be a futility, and on constitutional grounds reduced the verdict to $2250 per file. The RIAA appealed. The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals remanded on the ground that Judge Gertner ought to have decided the question on remittitur grounds and reached the constitutional question prematurely. By the time the case arrived back in District Court, Judge Gertner had retired, and a new judge — Judge Rya Zobel — had been assigned. Judge Zobel denied the remittitur motion. And then Judge Zobel denied the constitutional motion, leaving the larger verdict in place. I think it is reasonable to expect Tenenbaum to appeal this time around."

2 of 312 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Who cares by clarkkent09 · · Score: 0, Troll

    1) The level of damages should not exceed 10 times the value of the product/song
     
    And where did you get that number from? So, if you are a music artist and you sell your song for $1 from your small, low traffic website, I, as a big corporation can take your song and distribute it from my big high traffic website for free and sell a million dollars worth of advertising. And the most you can sue me for is $10?

    --
    Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
  2. Re:Who cares by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1, Troll

    The damages are there not because he downloaded the song, but because he distributed the song. His motivation is his business. The damages to the copyright owner in terms of lost sales are the same whether he did it for profit or not.

    --
    Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.