Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
The Courts

Tenenbaum's Final Brief — $675K Award Too High 525

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

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

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Fees (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 18, 2010 @09:07PM (#31193984)


  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 18, 2010 @09:17PM (#31194082)

    The high levels of deterrents are in place to deter, not to punish. Which is why the RIAA has been offering very reasonable settlements in the order of a few thousand dollars, which even most college students can borrow from their parents until they become productive members of society. And that's really the point here, the RIAA are producing content, employing people and building economic bridges around the world. Kids like Tenenbaum are tearing down those bridges and why? For a few free tracks.

    People have got to stop thinking of file sharing, torrents and sharing networks as a free for all. Imagine how useful all of this sharing infrastructure would be if the RIAA hadn't been forced by circumstance to try to stop it?

    It's this rampant sharing which is taring the internet a new one. Very soon, political leaders will have the tools to control free speech, an industry group funding their lobbying for the tools and a completely valid excuse to implement them. Why? Because Joel wanted to listen to the latest music industry rubbish without paying. Just throw the book at him already, he's guilty and should not be revered.

  • Re:Fees (Score:4, Funny)

    by bws111 ( 1216812 ) on Thursday February 18, 2010 @11:35PM (#31195330)
    Gee, if only there were a legal way to get the opinions of others before you bought something. Nah, that'll never happen.
  • You may not like NYCL or agree what he says, but he's posting facts based on law, and you're posting what you pull out of your posterior.

    I can't imagine anyone not liking me. At least anyone who doesn't know me.

"Well, social relevance is a schtick, like mysteries, social relevance, science fiction..." -- Art Spiegelman