Joel Tenebaum Goes Back to Owing the RIAA $675,000 in File Sharing Case
Remember Joel Tenebaum? He's a 28-year-old graduate student at Boston University pursuing a physics PhD. He's also enjoying a little more than 15 minutes of fame for fighting the RIAA in a copyright case in which Mr. Tenebaum was originally ordered to pay $675,00, a amount that was later reduced to $67,500 before a federal appeals court on Friday reinstated the original verdict.
Let's backtrack for a moment. Mr. Tenebaum could have settled his case way back in 2003 for $3,500, but instead chose to send a money order for $500. His counter-offer was denied, and in 2009, a jury found him guilty of willful infringement and put him on the hook for $675,000.
In 2010, U.S. District Judge Nancy Gerner of Boston reduced the damages to $67,500, which works out to $2,250 for each of the 30 tracks. The reduced award didn't sit well with either side, and both Mr. Tenebaum and the RIAA filed appeals. Having now ruled on the matter, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the original amount.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation called it a "disappointing ruling," noting that the appellate court didn't necessarily disagree on the constitutional question of the original award, but said the court shouldn't have considered the issue in the first place.
"Citing the doctrine of 'constitutional avoidance,' which dictates that courts should avoid tackling constitutional issues unnecessarily, the court found that Judge Gertner should first have considered using a procedure called 'remittitur.' Under this procedure, she could have lowered the damages amount, but, if the record companies chose not to accept the new amount, they could have asked for a new trial," the EFF explains.
Like the case involving Jammie Thomas, this is one that will continue to bounce around the legal system, unless by some chance Mr. Tenebaum decides to cut a check for $675,000. Yeah right.
Comments
Comments are closed on this article
![]()
Eoraptor
September 19, 2011 at 3:50pm
No, the constitution had NO bearing on illegal sexirues and searchs, nor cruel and unusual punishments here... not at all.
""$2,250 per song"" I don't think that the bands would even charge that much to perform the individual song live for you in your own living room. You don't even pay that much for the "ZOMG he sweat right on me!" seats at a concert. And yet RIAA would have you believe the songs are actually worth ten times that number.
Theft is wrong, whether it comes over a DSL connection, or via a subpeona.
![]()
Nyarlathotep
September 19, 2011 at 10:58am
So we'll tie up our legal system with back and forth cases like this while violent offenders wait longer to be tried and in the end defendants like Joel will most likely not end up paying. Everyone loses.
If only there was half as much effort put forth to hold wall street executives accountable for our totally avaoidable economic crash.
![]()
bling581
September 19, 2011 at 10:07am
I don't understand the need to sue for outrageous amounts when it's obvious people can't pay that much. Charge him $100 per song and I'm sure he'd think twice about downloading music again. Knowing the RIAA I would've just taken the $3,500 total offer if I were him. He would've gotten off easy.
![]()
Paul_Lilly
September 19, 2011 at 10:22am
You answered your own question. The RIAA wants to set a legal precedent, and also encourage anyone caught sharing copyrighted music to accept their settlement offer, or risk being on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars, or even millions of dollars depending no how many songs were shared.
![]()
CaptainFabulous
September 19, 2011 at 11:08am
Exactly. They want to have these cases to use as leverage to keep their extortion business running smoothly. "Pay us $3500 now even if you're innocent or you could be on the hook for $675,000".
Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook
Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.
















