RIAA Lawsuits

Sony Records v Joel Tenenbaum

Early Commentary The Trial and Outcome

Judge to RIAA: 'It's Terribly Critical That You Stop It'

October 29, 2008 -- ZDNet reports that Prof. Charles Nesson of Harvard Law School "is charging that the RIAA's tactics are an abuse of federal process and that the law on which the litgation rests is unconstitutional." These arguments were in defense of Joel Tenenbaum, who is being sued for the outragously aggregious and anarchistic behavior of downloading seven entire songs when he was a teenager.

RIAA Suddenly Gets Camera-Shy

January 18, 2009 -- The RIAA is suing a teenager for a million dollars over the alleged sharing of 7 songs with a retail value of $6.93 or less. They want to make an example out of him, but they're worried that if you are allowed to watch the legal arguments over the internet, it won't be fair -- for them.

Media Supports Video Feed in Sony v Tenenbaum

January 31, 2009 -- The New York Times, AP, NPR, Washington Post, NBC, Court TV, Dow Jones, Gannett, Hearst, E.W.Scripps and a few others decided to offer the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals their opinion of the RIAA's claim that allowing a video feed during the oral arguments of Sony v Tenenbaum would harm the RIAA's ability to get a fair trial.

After all, they've been running the RIAA's propaganda for years now. What they chose to go with was the fact that they can edit transcripts and reporters' notes if they want to make you look bad.

"It is hard to imagine a hearing more deserving of public scrutiny through the same technological medium that is at the heart of this litigation," the news organizations said in their brief to the appeals court.

July 9, 2010 -- Having noted that the plantiff's actual damages in this case were about $30, District Judge Nancy Gertner reduced the jury's award from $675,000, or $22,500 per infringed work, to $67,500, or $2,250 per infringed work, on due process grounds, holding that the jury's award was unconstitutionally excessive.

July 27, 2009 -- The first day was consumed by jury selection but just before that process began, Judge Gertner threw out the fair use defense. Bad news for Joel, but someone made a logo for him, which you can see if you follow the link. So he's got that going for him.

Fair use was the winning defense in Sony v Betamax, so we can see why they wanted to deal with that from the outset.

Just so we don't start out with the view that Judge Gertner is going to make it easy for the RIAA, we have to remember what she told their attornies last October regarding this case:

"Counsel representing the record companies have an ethical obligation to fully understand that they are fighting people without lawyers, to understand that the formalities of this are basically bankrupting people, and it's terribly critical that you stop it."

July 28 -- Day Two -- Ray Beckerman, usually the best source of information on these cases, has vowed not to write any more about this one, as they have already gone so far astray from the triable issues and he seems kind of pissed off about it. Fortunately, Mark Bourgoise is handling that for Ray and has provided an excellent summary of the opening statements and the witness testimony.

July 29 -- Day 3 -- The RIAA is still calling witnesses. After two of Joel's friends ratted him out yesterday, today started with another high school chum willing to do the same. Then RIAA "expert" witness Doug Jacobson appeared, followed by JoAn Cho of Universal Music, and Stan Leibowitz of the University of Texas.

July 30 -- Day 4 -- Joel Tenenbaum takes the stand and admits to everything he is accused of, even characterizing the RIAA's pseudo-expert Doug Jacobson as a "competent professional." WTF?? The defense was only supposed to last one day in the first place, but unless they suddenly have some kind of plan involving, oh, questioning where in the law it says that downloading is an actionable offense, or maybe by making the RIAA prove that distribution actually took place, including the required "(c) by sale, other transfer of ownership, rental, lease, or lending," part. See 17 USC 106(3). More coverage at Recording Industry vs The People.

July 31 -- Verdict -- After yesterday's kamakazi move, the judge declares Tenenbaum guilty as charged. The jury awards the RIAA $675,000 (just a tad more than $22k per song), much less than the $150,000 per song they were asking for, but still pretty far into the ridiculous range.

*Early Commentary*	*The Trial and Outcome*
Judge to RIAA: 'It's Terribly Critical That You Stop It' October 29, 2008 -- ZDNet reports that Prof. Charles Nesson of Harvard Law School "is charging that the RIAA's tactics are an abuse of federal process and that the law on which the litgation rests is unconstitutional." These arguments were in defense of Joel Tenenbaum, who is being sued for the outragously aggregious and anarchistic behavior of downloading seven entire songs when he was a teenager. RIAA Suddenly Gets Camera-Shy January 18, 2009 -- The RIAA is suing a teenager for a million dollars over the alleged sharing of 7 songs with a retail value of $6.93 or less. They want to make an example out of him, but they're worried that if you are allowed to watch the legal arguments over the internet, it won't be fair -- for them. Media Supports Video Feed in Sony v Tenenbaum January 31, 2009 -- The New York Times, AP, NPR, Washington Post, NBC, Court TV, Dow Jones, Gannett, Hearst, E.W.Scripps and a few others decided to offer the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals their opinion of the RIAA's claim that allowing a video feed during the oral arguments of Sony v Tenenbaum would harm the RIAA's ability to get a fair trial. After all, they've been running the RIAA's propaganda for years now. What they chose to go with was the fact that they can edit transcripts and reporters' notes if they want to make you look bad. "It is hard to imagine a hearing more deserving of public scrutiny through the same technological medium that is at the heart of this litigation," the news organizations said in their brief to the appeals court.	July 9, 2010 -- Having noted that the plantiff's actual damages in this case were about $30, District Judge Nancy Gertner reduced the jury's award from $675,000, or $22,500 per infringed work, to $67,500, or $2,250 per infringed work, on due process grounds, holding that the jury's award was unconstitutionally excessive. July 27, 2009 -- The first day was consumed by jury selection but just before that process began, Judge Gertner threw out the fair use defense. Bad news for Joel, but someone made a logo for him, which you can see if you follow the link. So he's got that going for him. Fair use was the winning defense in Sony v Betamax, so we can see why they wanted to deal with that from the outset. Just so we don't start out with the view that Judge Gertner is going to make it easy for the RIAA, we have to remember what she told their attornies last October regarding this case: "Counsel representing the record companies have an ethical obligation to fully understand that they are fighting people without lawyers, to understand that the formalities of this are basically bankrupting people, and it's terribly critical that you stop it." July 28 -- Day Two -- Ray Beckerman, usually the best source of information on these cases, has vowed not to write any more about this one, as they have already gone so far astray from the triable issues and he seems kind of pissed off about it. Fortunately, Mark Bourgoise is handling that for Ray and has provided an excellent summary of the opening statements and the witness testimony. July 29 -- Day 3 -- The RIAA is still calling witnesses. After two of Joel's friends ratted him out yesterday, today started with another high school chum willing to do the same. Then RIAA "expert" witness Doug Jacobson appeared, followed by JoAn Cho of Universal Music, and Stan Leibowitz of the University of Texas. July 30 -- Day 4 -- Joel Tenenbaum takes the stand and admits to everything he is accused of, even characterizing the RIAA's pseudo-expert Doug Jacobson as a "competent professional." WTF?? The defense was only supposed to last one day in the first place, but unless they suddenly have some kind of plan involving, oh, questioning where in the law it says that downloading is an actionable offense, or maybe by making the RIAA prove that distribution actually took place, including the required "(c) by sale, other transfer of ownership, rental, lease, or lending," part. See 17 USC 106(3). More coverage at Recording Industry vs The People. July 31 -- Verdict -- After yesterday's kamakazi move, the judge declares Tenenbaum guilty as charged. The jury awards the RIAA $675,000 (just a tad more than $22k per song), much less than the $150,000 per song they were asking for, but still pretty far into the ridiculous range.