Joel Tenenbaum Loses Again; Bad Cases With Lying Defendants Make For Bad Law
from the unfortunate dept
From very early on, we pointed out that Joel Tenenbaum's defense to being sued by the record labels was a complete and total train wreck. There were some legitimate legal issues to be raised, but on the whole, Tenenbaum's legal team either failed to raise them, or raised them so ridiculously that they were dismissed out of hand. At points, it appeared that they bet the whole game on the idea that downloading music would be seen by the court as "fair use," when that was almost certainly never going to fly (and when the court rejected it, it seemed like Tenenbaum's lawyers had no backup plan). This was all made much, much, much worse by the fact that Joel Tenenbaum was a terrible defendant. He never should have gone to trial and should have taken the first settlement offered to him for a very simple reason: he was guilty of massive amounts of file sharing, and there was no way he was going to get around that point in a trial. Even worse (much worse) he then lied, repeatedly, about this. It's stunning that he didn't just settle and move on. This was a clear cut case where he had no case, and fighting it has only served to set bad to awful precedents, each time clouded in large part by his behavior outside of just the file sharing.So it's no surprise that, on yet another appeal, Tenenbaum has lost again, as the appeals court has sided with the second district court ruling, which said that a $675,000 award for sharing 30 songs was perfectly reasonable. There is a legitimate issue of whether or not $22,500 per song for songs that were uploaded non-commercially is constitutional. But, partly because of Tenenbaum's own bad behavior, the court has no problem at all with an award that high.
On appeal, Tenenbaum invites us to assume that he is "the most heinous of noncommercial copyright infringers." We need not go so far as to accept his offer. The evidence of Tenenbaum's copyright infringement easily justifies the conclusion that his conduct was egregious. Tenenbaum carried on his activities for years in spite of numerous warnings, he made thousands of songs available illegally, and he denied responsibility during discovery. Much of this behavior was exactly what Congress was trying to deter when it amended the Copyright Act. Therefore, we do not hesitate to conclude that an award of $22,500 per song, an amount representing 15% of the maximum award for willful violations and less than the maximum award for non-willful violations, comports with due process.Basically, an award this high is okay because Tenenbaum was a brat. The court argues that because he was such a brat an award this high makes sense because it fits in with the "deterrent effect" intended by statutory damages awards. Of course, if you think about that logically, it makes little sense, because by Tenenbaum's own actions, it appears that nothing was going to deter him from file sharing, just as other giant awards and greater levels of punishment have done little to nothing to deter others from file sharing. But, all of that is blurred by the fact that he lied, which mucked up the entire case, combined with a really piss poor strategy in court that never seemed to reach a point that was even half-baked.
There are legitimate questions about the constitutionality of copyright's statutory damages awards, which are nowhere near proportionate with the "wrongs" they are supposedly "righting." But, you don't get good rulings on difficult cases when you have a defendant who acted badly and lied during discovery. Instead, you get a bad precedent like this one.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: constitutional, copyright, due process, joel tenenbaum, statutory damages
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The insane damages are just that, insane.
He was a horrible defendant but the damages awarded far outstrip the actual "crime".
They are based on conjecture of how much they imagine they lost, no factual data.
The law is still from an age when making a copy was long, involved, and costly... so that if someone were to do it, they would have a profit motive.
Copying things is now able to be done with ease, and many people do it everyday blithely unaware they violate copyright so often.
Awards like this backed up with, but well you were a dick too, do not do anything but make people angry. They see the insanity in the system and stare in wonder.
Copyright Trolls, this case, and so many other stupid things happening show over and over the law is broken but no one has the will to fix it, fearing lack of "contributions". For once it would be nice if the people came before the corporations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
decent quality martyr.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The justice system is broken, as are many of the laws on the books. I posted this quote a few weeks back:
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it" - F.Bastiat
No matter how absurd and overblown the purported 'damages,' the system is biased towards the wealthy and big business. They do it simply because they can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
IF there was a 'law' (what are those? oh yeah, those mutable, amorphous, sometimes secret things which bind 99% of us to behavior the STATE wants to impose, and lets 1% do whatever the fuck they want without consequences) that ANY/ALL plaintiffs, lawyers, and judges in 'IP' cases had to PROVE they had NEVER traduced idiotic IP laws, etc, THERE WOULD BE NO ACTIONS EVER TAKEN...
...its hypocrites all the way down ! ! !
caesar's wife ? i doubt they can rise to the moral standard of caesar's assassins...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Award Size
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As far as it appearing "that nothing was going to deter him from file sharing", how much file sharing do you think he's doing now, Masnick? Hmm?
Once again you write the opposite of reality, and claim it as fact.
That's called lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
He did it because he thought he could get away with it. He found out the hard way that there is always the possibility that you won't.
So having seen that the consequences are very real, how much file sharing is the little pirate douche engaging in now, hmm?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can you show that he has stopped file sharing? HMMMM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However, regardless of it the damages imposed are way too high and certainly do not fit the supposed crime. Honestly I've yet to see any seeder that went above a 100, 200 ratio which would justify fines of $200 to $400 per song (considering the standard value of $0.99 and a 2 factor multiplier as a deterrent).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, I'm saying that it's no surprise the court ruled the way it did, because they were unable to focus on the specific issues because of all those factors. So yes, I blame him for putting himself in a position to get such an awful ruling and distorting the real issues.
If you want a good ruling, you want a clean case: one where the court can't focus on anything else, like the fact that Tenenbaum was a twerp who lied.
none of the above should make any difference to him being found guilty or not,
I'm living in reality. Explaining reality. Don't attack me for explaining reality.
using the above as reasons for stitching him up for $22,500 per song is outrageous!! even 100 per song is high, but this amount? wow!!!
I have never said the amount is okay. Just the opposite. I'm just saying Tenenbaum never should have been in a position to have a court rule on this, because they were going to focus on his being a lying twerp, rather than the issue you raise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I really think you should read the post again. I am not *justifying* it. I'm explaining why it happened, and why it's bad. I agree that the punishment is ridiculous, I'm just pointing out that the court would never focus on just the absurdity of the amount, because Tenenbaum's other actions. That's what clouded the ruling.
I'm not "justifying" it at all. I think it's terrible. What upsets me is that the *next* defendant, the one who wasn't as bad, who did't lie... still gets stuck with this precedent.
You seem to have totally misinterpreted what I said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"he made thousands of songs available illegally"
Last time I checked, he was only convicted of sharing 30 songs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"nothing was going to deter him from file sharing"
Listen, kids, when YOUR notions of "sharing" are taken to court you ALWAYS lose. It's illegal to provide copyrighted content for free because you don't own it. Adult society has already worked out the limits of what you can do with someone else's property. I consider the ownership well-based in common law, and I've frequently advised that you just get on to how well the system rewards actual creators -- and how it vastly over-rewards the fat cats, middlemen, and all others who grift off the value of content -- including fat slugs like Kim Dotcom who illegally got millions.
Guess we'll see how well it works for deterrence, starting with fanboys declaring here that "nothing was going to deter ... from file sharing"...
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Where "I'm a pirate! You can't stop me!" is one of the more thoughtful fanboy positions.
01:54:56[b-917-2]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "nothing was going to deter him from file sharing"
Yea, like the current copyright regime rewards actual creators well...which is why we get articles on Techdirt all the time about artists being screwed over in royalties, and actors from massively successful movies being told they're not being paid because their movie isn't profitable (Return of the Jedi, anyone?).
I know you spew falsehoods. The other readers know you spew falsehoods. You know you lie. So why continue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "nothing was going to deter him from file sharing"
(said breathlessly and with wide-eyed demeanor)
yes, and speeding is ILLEGAL too ! ! !
...geez, and yet, 99.999999999% of the people do so on a regular basis and have ZERO consequences (either wrecking or a ticket) to show for it...
*same* with IP 'theft' (sic): 99.999999% of the time we/you/us get away with it with NO consequences, EXCEPT a BETTER, cheaper media experience...
IT IS NATURAL TO SHARE, IT IS UNNATURAL TO STOP SHARING.
in this locked-down, EULA-ed up the ass, profit uber alles society the masters of the universe have created in their own image, WE CAN'T TAKE A BREATH OF AIR WITHOUT SOME KAPITALIST PIGGIE WANTING TO "MONETIZE" IT...
THAT is the nub of the problem WE have, NOT promoting a prison-society where almighty mammon rules...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "nothing was going to deter him from file sharing"
Don't forget, Mike has to pay you first for your posts to become coherent, according to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thinking out loud...
I realize there are idiots in this world, but this seems unusually stacked in the wrong direction. Egregious offender wanting to fight to good fight, but hiring incompetent lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thinking out loud...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two side notes. First, he was not "convicted" because this was a civil trial. He was held to be "liable" for his actions. Second, the 30 songs places limits on the total amount of what could be assessed against the defendant, but where within the range of possible damages for each infringement an amount could be set may be based in part upon other actions demonstrating to the satisfaction of the jury that one amount was more appropriate than another in order to curtail the defendant once more engaging in such activities. IOW, it was appropriate to note the "thousands", but the range of damages awarded for each infringement was limited to the range of the "30".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I remember when the Harvard kids got involved
Clearly those people don't understand how poorly Harvard Law prepares folks for civil litigation and how little the Professor overseeing it knew about civil litigation.
What an epic fail.
This was going on during my time in law school and my friends would find me cursing loudly at the screen of my computer over the stupidity of Tenenbaum's counsel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny how the RIAA insists that they must get each and every pound of flesh, and yet, they can't ever give a straight answer as to where that pound of flesh ends up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So we should stop meting out punishment or holding people liable for their unlawful conduct? DO you seriously think that there wouldn't be an explosion of infringing if all penalties and liability were removed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's simple.
The likelihood of being prosecuted for copyright infringement through torrenting is small. The ease to do the deed is extremely high. The punishment is astronomical. Therefore, there's no actual reason for someone NOT to torrent, it's too easy to say "Nah,I'll never be caught".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
- Fitting to the crime committed, and not ridiculously expensive
- Actually meted out to the right people, not the sap holding onto the IP address pulled out of nowhere
- Resultant penalties were re-attributed to the artists that were allegedly stolen from
Then you might actually get somewhere. Right now getting RIAAed is as likely as getting struck by lightning. Actual pirates aren't bothered. Making new laws to make it easier to catch other innocent people in this dragnet like SOPA is not the answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I didn't say all penalties and liability should be removed. Why must you always lie? It's pretty sick.
I said that the court justified the high amount solely because of the supposed deterrent effect. But if there's no proven deterrent effect, then that entire argument goes away.
As such it would go back to liability based on a reasonable look at the harm caused, which I think is fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It hurts people who are below more and more the more they get below that line and it hurts less and less for the people who get more and more away from that line, it should be based on earnings or declared income, so it hurts everyone the same in the same proportion, with alternative means of hardship for those who don't have income.
It hurts fairness and justice, so why people keep making up arbitrary values?
How hard is to write:
"The punishment shall be the value of the harm caused if known plus a deterrent factor of one year income worth, the paying of such shall be at the discretion of the judge which shall take into consideration how the subject will be able to pay in full the deterrent factor, it must be hard enough to deter somebody but not impossible to be accomplished"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It has a much higher chance of causing actual real harm, including multiple deaths, and you think that Copyright infringment should have a thousand times higher penalty?
What reality do you live in? it is certainly not the reality the rest of us live in
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
People continue to share and they appear to not care about the letter of the law.
Kaplan(Warner Bros) just said in public that pirates are a proxy for consumer interest and that they are turning a blind eye to piracy(i.e. fan art).
This has been going on for the better part of 20 years now, do you need more 20 to get that it won't stop don't matter what you do to others?
No matter what you think about piracy, is a fact. I would like to see LoLCats disappear, but I do know its not going to happen do I get mad because funny cats are everywhere? nope I move on, I don't spend scarce resources trying to stop what others do, I find a way around those issues so I don't have to deal with them and sometimes even I post some LoLCats somewhere is funny how it grows on you if you give it a chance, you stop hating it so much, maybe you should do the same with pirates since obviously you are a closet pirate preaching against the "filth". This reminds me, do you secretly hate yourself blue?
Life is so beautiful, look at the Sun, stop looking into the abyss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]