Joel Tenenbaum Appealing Reduced FineAdded: Friday, September 3rd, 2010
Category: Recent Headlines Involving File Sharing > Current Events
Tags:ET, p2p, Torrent, Piracy, Peer To Peer, Network, Hackers, Internet, BitTorrent, Google, utorrent, bitcomet, extratorrent, 2010, www.extrattorrent.com
The long-lasting story of convicted file-sharer is going on with Tenenbaum appealing the latest decision. Although he was ordered to pay $67,500 in damages instead of original $675,000, he still believes this amount is “insane.” Joel points out that the latest decision sounds reasonable just because it was much larger before.
A year ago file-sharer Joel Tenenbaum was found guilty of copyright violation for unauthorized distribution of a few copyrighted tracks. He was ordered to pay the fine of $22,500 per each case of infringement, making it $675,000 in total. Charles Nesson, Tenenbaum’s attorney, decided to appeal the ruling on several grounds. One of them was that downloading content without the permission of the rights owner may qualify for “fair use” exemption from copyright legislation, which means that an individual user can’t be held responsible for damages if they are not proven to have caused real losses.
Joel offered recording industry a $21 counter offer, considering that 70 cents for each track would be sufficient enough, as it’s exactly the same amount that would have been paid to the label if the file-sharer had bought those songs on iTunes. Unsurprisingly, the RIAA did not respond.
The appeal led to the fine reduction by 10 times to $67,500 under the judge’s determination that the $675,000 is “unconstitutionally excessive.” Besides, the question was raised of whether the Constitution’s Due Process Clause was violated by the initial decision, as $675,000 against an individual gaining no profit from his violation is just ridiculous, as his individual infringing acts didn’t lead to any minimal harm to the plaintiffs.
The RIAA hurried to decry the ruling and complain that the judge had easily substituted the judgment of 10 jurors and Congress not fully accounting for the harm caused to the music industry due to the activity that Tenenbaum admitted to be engaged in. In respond, the Association formally filed another appeal of the reduced ruling.
Meanwhile, Tenenbaum is fighting back, claiming that the reduced ruling is as insane as the initial one. His attorney recently filed a notice which said that he would appeal with the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. There he mentions that he’s going to challenge a number of rulings of Judge Gertner – for example, her refusal to hear that the defendant offered to settle the industry’s claims for $500 back five years ago.
Thanks to TorrentFreak for providing the source of the article
September 3rd, 2010Posted by:
Friday, September 3rd, 2010
|What allot of people missed ( general Public ) was this: THEY DID NOT THINK WHAT THEY WERE DOING WAS ILLEGAL UNTIL ALL THE RIAA STARTED THESE LAW SUITS...|
My take on that assumption was due to RADIO... Remember RADIO? All that music broadcast over the air for FREE?. Same goes for TV? You have a VCR? DVR?, etc. You RECORDED YOUR FAVORATE SHOW TO WATCH?
THAT WAS ALL LEGAL UNDER THE FAIR USE PART OF THE DCMA..
BUT! You "downloaded" your "shows" from a TORRENT THEN YOU ARE A PIRATE AND BROKE THE LAW according to the RIAA and MPAA.
Check out this link for allot of information that you will find very very interesting: http://joelfightsback.com
Below is a part of an interview from the President of the RIAA - if this doesn't open your eyes as to what they really plan? I do not what will..
RIAA President: The Case for the Innocent Infringer
The case for the innocent infringer — an interview with RIAA President Cary Sherman.
A few years ago the RIAA switched tactics. Instead of high-profile prosecutions of people who pirated music, you decided to put the onus on the ISPs. How successful was that transition?
The time had come to shift over to a strategy that would be more effective. The lawsuits were obviously controversial in the media, but the reality was that most people had no idea that what they were doing was illegal at the time of those lawsuits. We did all sorts of surveys. We tried PR firms. We did everything to look at how to begin to change the culture of using illegal P2P. We realized that 1) none of the messages resonated, and 2) most people had no idea that what they were doing was illegal, let alone thought it was wrong. That completely flipped overnight when we started the lawsuits. It made an enormous impression and we were constantly generating dinner conversations about what you may or may not do with your computer. We think it would be very good if there were more such conversations about all the other things that can be done inappropriately with a computer. So we think it had a tremendous impact by very clearly searing in the minds of the public that maybe getting all of this stuff for free isn’t legal after all.
|what abought TEVO what was that made for only one thing to record you tv show they did not bann that||
Most Popular Stories