RIAA Update
Two quick updates:
The RIAA has rejected re remittitur in the Jammie Thomas case, meaning that there will be a third trial, this one only for damages. One wonders what this trial will look like, when the Judge has already ruled at $54,000 was the maximum that any jury could reasonably award for these damages.
Similarly, the RIAA opposed Joel Tenenbaum’s motion for remittitur, which is in no way surprising.
Comments Off
Posted in: Links on February 9, 2010
Podcast 34: Some Relation
FBI Spying, Jammie Thomas gets a Break, and Joel Tenenbaum Tries to Reduce his Verdict.
Please download the podcast or subscribe to the feed. Feel free to e-mail us with questions, comments, or suggestions.
FBI Takes Phone Records
FBI broke law for years in phone record searches
The statute
Jammie Thomas-Rasset Gets a Break
Joel Tenenbaum Asks for a Break
UPDATE: We’ve switched to a new recording system that results in a better quality, but for some reason, lower volume podcast. We’re aware of this, and looking in to it. In the meantime, if you have iTunes, turn the volume adjust on the mp3 to 100%, or download it directly from the website. Either of these seem to help solve the problem.
Comments Off
Posted in: Podcast on January 25, 2010
Tenenbaum Trial: Directed Verdict Granted
Judge Nancy Gertner granted a motion for directed verdict (also known to as a judgment as a matter of law) for the plaintiffs in Sony v. Tenenbaum. The fatal blow to the trial was dealt after Tenenbaum himself took the stand and admitted “us[ing] P2P” and “lied about it” in response to a cross-examination question. The remaining issue in this portion of the litigation is a determination of damages.
A Judgment as a Matter of Law is a procedural device under the rules of Federal Civil Procedure (see F.R.C.P 50) whereby a party may make a motion requesting a verdict be granted by the judge. The key inquiry is whether based on the evidence presented up to the point the motion is made, is there any way a reasonable jury could only come to one conclusion. To ensure some measure of fairness, the motions are evaluated by the judge in “a light most favorable to the non-moving party.” The judge must find that a “reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient basis to find for the non-moving party on the issue.”
In a copyright infringement case, a key matter is whether the defendant was in fact responsible for a violation of the exclusive rights to a copyright holder. At several points during the litigation, Tenenbaum has attempted to shift the blame to other people, claiming he was not responsible himself for the acts of infringement. Once Tenenbaum admitted to using P2P software in his testimony it was a nail in the coffin on this particular issue. This empowered the plaintiffs to move for a judgement as a matter of law; and, in effect, this killed the disputed factual elements of the case.
The next portion of the proceedings moves on to a determination of damages. The jury will be responsible for this determination and must come up with an amount of damages based on the statutory scheme of the Copyright Act. The Act provides a spectrum of figures that guide damage awards: $750 minimum to $150,000 maximum per infringement. In this case, that means at a minimum Tenenbaum will be found liable on 30 songs for $22,500, and at maximum $4.5M.
What remains now is still a significant question: what amount will the jury award? At this point we’ve seen one other case go to a jury on a determination for damages (Jammie Thomas) which returned an award of $1.92M based on an infringement of 24 recordings. Many critics of the statutory damages have challenged the nature of high damage rewards based on infringement of a small number of sound recordings, particularly where statutory damages are grossly disproportionate to the amount of actual damages suffered by a plaintiff. Indeed, a ripe issue on appeal will be whether such damages can pass Constitutional muster. This is sure to be hotly contested by Tenenbaum’s counsel following the damage award.
Update: As of 2 P.M. Friday, July 31, the case was handed off to the jury. More to follow.
Update 2: The jury came back with the damages award, only a few hours after deliberations began. Here’s the bad news: $675,000 ($22,500 per song).
Comments Off
Posted in: Analysis on July 31, 2009
