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."
In order to steal music that I would rather stab myself in the balls with an ice pick than listen, the idiot ruined his life. Why didn't he just pay $30?
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
We all agree the courts are disgusting. And yet we are doing nothing to fix them. We need an internal affairs department for prosecutors, legislators and judges, who do nothing but watch over their shoulder for this kind of thing.
Just pay them already. You're guilty and you know it.
I'm not sure how they can say you owe $675,000 for stealing roughly $30 worth of products. If I stole 3 CDs from Wallmart, would I also be charged $675,000? What if I stole $30 from someone? I am not familiar with the case, but I don't see on here that he stole with the intent to undermine future sales of that company, causing significant losses.
I got caught stealing when I was younger. What happened to me was they recovered their items and I was banned from the store until I became an adult. Maybe they should just ban him from having access to these types of things, like making it illegal for him to have internet in his home, instead of an outrageous fine that most people can't afford.
May as well just start hanging people for stealing music/movies.
Down with the dictatorship of capital! For the dictatorship of the proletariat! WE NEED COMMUNISM NOW!
Readers: Have you joined the Campaign for a Free Internet yet? Remember, as our visionary founder-leader Laura once said, "today, our future begins with tomorrow!" NEED I SAY MORE? GET OFF YOUR ASSES, SLASHDORT READERS AND JOIN THE CAMPAIGN TODAY! and you will get a free email of yes!!!!!
UNITE with the Campaign for a Free Internet because today, our future begins with tomorrow!
The Faith I had in the justice system has been lost. All the judges do now is allow a private organization to dictate morality AND damages. How is that justice? Damages should be between 3-10 times to be punitive. How is the original level of damages fair at all?
Can't this kid just file for bankruptcy? Corporations do it all the time and skip out on their obligations. Liquidate all his assets (none) pay off what he can (nothing) and tell the creditors to shove it. Barring that, what else can he possibly do? Pay in $100 for the rest of his life? This is pure lunacy.
I didn't really feel like pirating a bunch of music I think is bland in the first place, and what little I do listen to I listen to legally. However, it's things like this that make me want to start a bunch of torrent bots to spread as many terabytes of their content as I possibly can- just a feeling of what I want to do.. Just a feeling.. At least that's what I'm going to say.
Can somebody explain in plain English what the legal hoopla really means? To me, this case seems more like a legal Goldberg machine than an actual court case....
"Fix it? It has been disintegrated, by definition it cannot be fixed!" - Gru in Despicable Me.
Ok, I respect old people, but I don't trust them - not one bit. This lady is 80 - how is she qualified to be a judge on a case that involves technology? The RIAA must have convinced her that "downloading" somehow stole their copy and they had to get them back... Anyways, I'd be curious to see the list of songs - just to see where those songs are in the charts / profit margins.
where copyright terms are constantly extended. Disney built their empire off the works of the Brothers Grimm, Hans Christian Anderson, Mark Twain, etc. But, congress forbid that an old black and white Mickey Mouse cartoon should ever likewise fall into the public domain.
The real theft is being done by the copyright holders, they're stealing our culture from us.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
I'm just saying that people do stupid things, but does listening to 30 songs for about 1 hour per day mean that the offender should lose all hope of ever living an otherwise normal life? I will say that if you back someone into a corner and they see no way out then they either act against themselves or act out against others. The RIAA doesn't really see what's coming, or maybe they do and they think the only way to lessen the impact will be to destroy people.
Yes, this would be an excellent way to see that justice as done, and is not likely to be abused.
Next up: Julian Assange is accused (not convicted, just accused ...) of pirating 10 songs from the internet, and has had his Internet access privilege removed for life. Justice has been done, and there were no ulterior motives involved whatsoever in this legal action.
This is a far more reasonable use for the "how to disappear" thread than the government spies angle.
And meanwhile if a corporation breaks the law the fine is like 50% of the profits they made from breaking the law.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
If the judgement is upheld, and he has to pay the $675k, he's most likely not going to be able to pay that sum.
What would happen then?
I guess they would probably seize and sell his properties, but that's probably not enough.
So would he go to jail and have his debt written off, or is he going to kept them for his whole life?
Something else maybe?
Basically, why fine someone a sum the judge knows that the defendant won't be able to pay? To make an example I guess, but is there something else?
You're right; if he has nothing left to live for, he should do his best to make sure these bastards never harm anyone else again.
He should walk into their offices with an AK-47 and just start spraying bullets. He should preferably, take out all the execs and their lawyers if he can.
And you know what? The penalty he'll get for murdering 50+ people is probably less than what he's being charged with now. Chances are he'll be out in 10 years, whereas, if he accepts the fine, he'll be an economic prisoner for 90 years.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
The awesome thing is that they spend tons of cash lobbying for "tort reform" and with the other arm are using tort to roto-root people into insolvency for the pettiest of damages.
Steal a little, get a huge fine and threats of prison time.
Steal a lot, go to Washington D.C.
wachovia got caught laundering drug money and made 230 BILLION dollars
they were fined 150 MILLION dollars
50%? try 00.06%
Kind of like saying a chainsaw murderer was convicted of littering (blood).
They jury could have have used Jury Nullification. Jury's can find someone guilty but not agree with the punishment so acquit them. Of course if you even bring up nullification you'll probably be kicked off the jury. But I give the founders some credit for at least trying to make sure the average peer could apply common sense to laws.
I wish jury nullification was taught in every school, or included in every jury summons, to let people know the power they actually wield.
This story made me think of the excellent TED talk by Rob Reid, on copyright math. It's hilarious! http://www.ted.com/talks/rob_reid_the_8_billion_ipod.html
Which is why when you want to set a precedent in court, you choose the guy that nobody will love.
Once that's done, you can go after everyone else.
It doesn't get any better than this.
In case you're interested in reading the arguments I made in 2009 in this case, as to why the verdict was in violation of due process, here they are (PDF)
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
1. Download all the songs
2. Move to USA, send list to RIAA
3. Get sued for billions of dollars
mfw I am Herostratus, and burning down libraries is too much work.
I used to have thousands of my CDs ripped to .MP3s, but after I started seeing court cases like this I deleted them all and donated the CDs to my local library. I even used to purchase DRM free music too, deleted that shit. Look, I can't really PROVE that I got these music files legally. The risk of a single song costing me thousands of dollars, more if you factor in legal fees and lost work time, just isn't worth it taking the risk.
My personal internet connection has a dynamic IP. I've looked up my "current" IP address several times on sites like You Have Downloaded and found that the previous holders of the addresses were using Bittorrent to download stuff -- I assume legally, since I don't presume guilt without supporting evidence; Unfortunately, the legal system doesn't always follow the same logic. Interestingly, the You Have Downloaded site is closed, citing inaccuracy concerns...
I don't have much of a choice in ISPs. That said, I have to put a lot of faith in ISP staff to do proper record keeping in order to avoid wrongful litigation from goons like the RIAA or MPAA. This is the same staff of morons who gork my bill on a regular basis, and can't give me basic info like alternate DNS settings without first following a 30 step problem resolution script.
Keeping my systems free of any legally encumbered media is unfortunately a small safeguard I must make -- I seriously can not afford to risk the alternative. Fortunately, there is a thriving local music scene where I live, and there exists creative commons licensed music and video to enjoy. I wouldn't even call what I do a "boycott" of 'mainstream' media. I'd still buy the music & movies if they came with less troubling licenses and far less dangerous litigation precedents.
Sadly, a cost vs benefit risk analysis clearly shows the danger far outweighs the entertainment value of said media. Even worse, the "lost sales" caused by me withdrawing from their markets are most certainly attributed to "piracy".
I still own a Sony Betamax dual tape deck...
Paramount once sued Sony, accusing them of contributing to copyright infringement via producing a device that could be used to record live TV, or duplicate videos. Sony won that case on the grounds that although it could be used to infringe copyright, and even if infringement was the device's primary use case, there was still the POSSIBILITY that device could be used in non-infringing ways.
My, how the times have changed, eh? I'm a long time hardware & software hacker -- I hack on all my hardware as a general rule, so I couldn't risk owning a PS3 after the Sony v G.Hotz debacle -- I would have thought his work had the POSSIBILITY of being used in non-infringing ways... Nowadays, I don't even buy their music or movies, and games with "project $10" / online unlock codes and draconian DRM are also off the table for me. Damn. This current set of copyright laws is bad for everyone.
I sometimes joke that I started making my own games because I didn't want to hang up my controller, but I couldn't find any with EULAs I could actually agree to.
wachovia got caught laundering drug money and made 230 BILLION dollars they were fined 150 MILLION dollars
50%? try 00.06%
Cite? Everything I can find says that Wachovia laundered some $387B. In order to have made $230B, they'd have had to keep 60% of the money they moved, which seems highly unlikely. I haven't been able to find any estimates of their profits on the money they moved, but bank fees are typically a small fraction of a percent of the money that passes through. If they were able to actually hold that money for a period of time and use it to back loans they could have made more, but I still don't think it would be that high, even with the reserve lending multiplier.
I have no doubt that they paid less than they made, but it seems unlikely it was as bad as you described. Though if you can cite reliable sources for your number I'd be interested to see them.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
He downloaded 30 files, but then distributed them many, many times. And he kept distributing them after he was warned and asked to stop. Can't do the time, don't do the crime.
The fact that the songs normally retail for $0.99 is completely irrelevant. It would perhaps be relevant if he were merely downloading songs for his own personal enjoyment. That's not, however, what he was doing. He was downloading and then redistributing.
The relevant price comparison should be to the cost of a fixed price license that allows the licensee to make unlimited copies and redistribute them without restriction to anyone in the world, with no requirement to track or report on any of this to the licensor.
That license is going to cost a lot more than $0.99 per song.
Obviously the free to use model is not optimal as there will be little incentive on developing free stuff. With all due respect towards the dearly held Linux fanbois, I can't find a stable Linux kernel which has snd-aloop.ko in Debian. Also I don't want to spend $50 of my time or someone else's to fix what can should be fixed once and shipped out to many. On the other hand I believe the pay per copy model isn't the best neither. Firstly there is the software reuse case, company A has created software xA, company B has no way to reuse company A's software. He is forced to redo the work which leaves him with a high entry barrier. This also serves to kill the competition. Another problem with the pay per copy model is that it's unfair. Should the economy really pay 1 million dollars if a film is watched a million times? I believe that there should be a logical cap. Also another case is where a guy creates a piece that is given a 90 on the scale while the other gets 91. The 91'er gets all the glory while the 90 will be inferior and get much less attention, while one could argue that the competition was the thing that made the 91 what it is.
Sooner or later copyright will be extended without end. Can you imagine what will happen to the 1st alien race that finds evidence or humanity? They'll owe a bazillion dollars in royalties for the very first song they listen to.
I hope it's something more enjoyable than Britney Spears.
1. To pay this guys fine and restore give him back his life... cmon, there's worse things to give a buck to
2. To fund ongoing ad campaigns for worldwide copyright reform
Downloading 31 songs, or ruining someone's life because they download 31 songs?
Court Check Amendments:
Court Check Amendment I:
If two thirds of the Legislatures of the several states pass an identically worded resolution declaring that a particular ruling of the Supreme Court be overturned, that ruling shall be overturned.
Congress shall have the power to enforce these overridden rulings by appropriate legislation.
Court Check Amendment II:
If two thirds of the Legislatures of the several states pass an identically worded resolution declaring that a particular Federal Judge is to be removed from the bench, that Judge shall be removed from the bench, and shall no longer be eligible for any payments, salary, recompense, or other personal benefits from the Federal Government;
Congress shall have the power to enforce these removals by appropriate legislation;
A majority of the several states shall also have the power to enforce these removals by joint military action, as provided and directed by resolution of a majority of the several states.
I'm not sure how they can say you owe $675,000 for stealing roughly $30 worth of products.
Say you wanted to set up a music sales site... like, say you're Apple, and you wanted to set up the iTunes Music Store. Do you think you could offer the record companies 30 bucks for a perpetual, royalty free license? Like, "here's 30 bucks, I'mma gonna go distribute a million copies of Carly Rae Jepsen"?
This case isn't about downloading a single copy... this case was about uploading and distributing potentially thousands upon thousands of copies.
There is a simple truth to this. If he can declare bankruptcy and have all this go away, then do it, fine and be done with it. If they somehow insist that he has to pay his whole life, then he may as well kill all the RIAA/MPAA lawyers (and the judge and the idiots who passed the laws), or at least as many as he can. If his life is gone anyway, he may as well take a few (or as many as he can) with him. The judge and the corporation wants to send a 'lesson', and perhaps because of the stupidity they have created to basically create the mess, he could send his own 'lesson' right back at them. The last act of the brave when all hope is lost, and when there is nothing left to lose, is to take those who are trying to destroy you, and destroy them too. Its how people become suicide bombers. The corporations bought the laws from the legislative branch to control the judicial branch and rule over people. They do not represent this person. No taxation without representation. Its not just something stated, its a reality. This ruling has nothing to do with reality. Time for a reality check.
After all, he allegedly did $30 worth of damage to some corporate leeches. Now that'd be Justice!
US of A is obviously sorely in need of another revolution. When your justice system and economic model are in shambles, it's time.
And meanwhile if a corporation breaks the law the fine is like 50% of the profits they made from breaking the law.
Would the solution be to upload all songs as a corporation?
I noticed some pro-RIAA posts saying that defendant was liable for distributing, not just downloading. This is simply not so. Distribution, within the meaning of the Copyright Act, requires a sale or other transfer of ownership, or a rental, lease or lending.... none of which occurred here. 17 USC 106(3)
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
If he was innocent and had "fought the good fight", I would support Stupidbaum all I could. As it is, not only did he actually do what his accusers claimed, he lied about it in court. He got what he deserved. I bet next time he won't listen to relatives that obviously got their law degrees from a bubblegum machine.
One would think that geeks like those on Slashdot would support those unjustly prosecuted (and persecuted). Instead, they mostly back lying thieving guilty idiots like Stupidbaum and Jamie Dumbitch. And then the community cries and whines when the idiots get slammed by the court.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.