Judge Reduced Tenenbaum’s Fine 10 TimesAdded: Wednesday, July 14th, 2010
Category: Recent Headlines Involving File Sharing > Ridiculous Criminal Trials
Tags:ET, p2p, Torrent, Piracy, Peer To Peer, Network, Hackers, Internet, BitTorrent, Google, utorrent, bitcomet, extratorrent, 2010, www.extrattorrent.com
Tenenbaum case hasn’t been mentioned for a while, with the things remaining the same. However, the last court gave an interesting turn to the case, with a judge ruling a huge fine of $675,000 “excessive” and reducing it to $67,500.
It’s was almost a year ago when Joel Tenenbaum was charged $675,000 in the court for merely sharing 30 copyrighted works. Joel happened to be involved into a show trial, one of a few that were followed by many IP observers. Now the case seems to favor a defender a little bit, handing out a recent decision saying that the fine was initially unconstitutional.
In fact, the judge ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Constitution was violated by a jury that awarded $675,000 in damages against a person who even hasn’t got any profit from his violation and caused the industry minimal harm.
The judge said in his ruling that after weighing all considerations, the conclusion was made that the jury, awarding $675,000 in damages for copyright infringement of 30 songs, has taken a really unconstitutionally excessive decision. It could be told a mile off that such penalties are way greater than necessary, if they really intended to serve the government’s legitimate interests, like compensating rights holders and deterring copyright violation. So either the decision bore no relationship to these interests, or it was too excessive. Anyway, such judgment couldn’t withstand the scrutiny under the above mentioned Due Process Clause.
For these reasons, the judge reduced the jury’s award for $67,500 in total. Again, this amount was still significantly more than the judge might have awarded himself, but that was jury who took a final decision.
All this leaves us hope that the US court system can be sane if it wants to. Everyone can agree that the original fine was much too big for such infringement, especially taking into account that most of the tracks Joel shared are being sold online for only $1. Of course, the reduced fine of $67,500 is still quite high for uploading 30 songs, but it’s a clear sign of music industry losing their positions too.
Although the ruling does not clear Joel of his guilt, and neither it shies away from the labels’ message of the damage file-sharing cause them, it still shows that the US constitution applies to any individual too, not just to large enterprises.
July 14th, 2010Posted by:
Wednesday, July 14th, 2010
thanks for lettin us knw on the latest news SaM
|Looks like the judges are starting to get the "picture" of what is going on.|
Maybe this judge is thinking - Holy crap I've got kids and this is what can happen to them and me.....
It is very hard to obtain a multimillion dollar award on something the has a true market value of a DOLLAR.
Looks like the jury didn't see that.
The one big reason the RIAA refuses to go "digital" in distribution is they won't have control and again it is all about control.
What many laws in states have is something called Failure to Mitigate Damages - THE RIAA and MPAA continue to violate that..
by the lawyer fees and other cost that are not reasonable.
As mentioned before the only one's benefiting out of all this mess are the ATTORNEYS.
|posted by (2010-07-15 02:37:23)|
|Thanks for the info SaM||
Most Popular Stories