Tenenbaum Dinged $22,500 Per Song; $675,000 Total

from the and-onto-the-appeal dept

After admitting flat out yesterday that he downloaded and distributed songs using file sharing software, and that he lied about it, there wasn't a question of whether or not Joel Tenenbaum would be found guilty. In fact, the judge even said that the question wasn't even at issue. The only thing the jury had to work out was how much the damages would be, and they didn't take long at all, awarding $22,500 per song, or a total of $675,000. While a lot less than what the Jammie Thomas jury awarded, it's still a hefty chunk of change.

I've already expressed my distaste for how this trial was handled by Nesson and "Team Tenenbaum," but honestly, if he was going to just admit that he did it, it's unbelievable that he didn't just settle earlier when he had the chance. The only reason to go through with this is if the entire purpose is to create a later constitutional challenge on the statutory rates -- which many assume was Nesson's plan all along. However, if that's the case, is this really a good test case for that? Gleefully ignoring the law isn't the sort of thing that I think many judges/justices will find endearing. If this case does move up the appeals chain, one would hope that a better team of folks will handle Tenenbaum's appeal, and focus on the real legal issues. Of course, even before the appeal, it appears that Judge Gertner is planning to review whether or not the amount appears to be unconstitutional. It seems that particular ruling will be a lot more important than what the jury had to say.

58 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Trainwreck From Team Tenenbaum

from the really? dept

So, I had said I was going to try to avoid talking about the Tenenbaum file-sharing trial until it was over or unless something major happened, but reading through the reports of the first day it's hard not to declare it to be a train wreck in motion. So far, it appears that Charlie Nesson's argument is that "everybody's doing it!" While I obviously don't know the jury and don't know what else (if anything) Nesson has up his sleeve, that doesn't seem like the sort of argument that's all that convincing. In the meantime, I'm going to do something that I almost never do, and actually agree with entertainment industry lawyer Ben Sheffner (who regularly goes out of his way to misrepresent what I write here) and say that it's unconscionable that Nesson/Tenenbaum don't have an economic expert to testify on the "damages" caused by Tenenbaum. It's not like the idea hasn't been brought up before. Hell, we here had a lengthy discussion on exactly that back in March.

There are numerous economic experts out there who could clearly point out that there's no causal evidence that file sharing does any damage at all. There may be a correlation with a decline in CD sales, but not with any other aspect of the music industry -- and recent research is showing that the overall industry is growing. Even some of the music industry's own research is showing the overall industry is growing -- it's just that spending has shifted. It would have certainly been possible to make a strong case that file sharing alone doesn't cause any significant damage to the industry. They could have shown the recent economic studies, along with evidence of many, many, many artists who have embraced file sharing and used better business models to take that attention to make more money than they had in the past. At that point, they could make the case that it's not piracy that's causing harm to the plaintiffs, but their failure to adapt and embrace better business models. And, from that, show that Tenenbaum's actions didn't cause any direct harm.

But Nesson went on a wild goose chase pursuing "fair use" -- an argument that never really made much sense, and did so in a way that annoyed the judge and pretty much everyone associated with the case. He also screwed up getting the witnesses lined up for the case, only requesting that the author of one of those recent studies be allowed to testify long-past the deadline to do so. And, of course, with fair use being knocked out before the case started, and without any experts to present on damages, and a (so far) defense of "everyone's doing it," you have a recipe for disaster. Nesson seems much more focused on putting the whole RIAA strategy on trial, and seemed to forget that there were specific legal questions that had to be dealt with in this case. As with Jammie Thomas, I think that Tenenbaum is a bad case to go to trial, and I dread the results. At this point, the "best" result may be that they flub the case so badly that super high damages are awarded, and you end up with a repeat of the bad PR that came out following the Jammie Thomas trial (though, things are so twisted so far, I wouldn't be surprised if the RIAA themselves to do their best to convince the jury to keep the award low).

25 Comments | Leave a Comment..

No Surprise: Fair Use Rejected As Tenenbaum Defense

from the let-this-be-over-with-quickly dept

We've been careful to avoid covering most of the insanity around the Joel Tenenbaum trial from the last few months, as it became increasingly clear that the whole thing was a giant mess -- culminating in the plan to try to defend Joel's file sharing as "fair use." Pretty much everyone told the legal team that such a defense would never fly and it was a huge mistake. It's entirely unclear why Charlie Nesson kept pushing it. It should come as no surprise, then, to find out that the judge has rejected a fair use defense. One can hope that Nesson and crew actually have a better defense ready, but with the judge rejecting the planned fair use defense just hours before the trial began, you have to wonder if "Team Tenenbaum" has a real strategy at all. Hopefully it's just been hidden from all of us, because there are significant legal points that can be attacked, but to date Nesson seems to have focused on long shots, rather than the real legal questions at play.

Not only that, but it appears that even Judge Gertner (who originally approached Nesson about representing Tenenbaum, but had to scold him multiple times and threaten sanctions) seems to recognize that if Nesson and Tenenbaum had thought it out, there might actually have been ways to make a fair use claim stick. But, instead they failed to make a compelling case and (as Gertner says): "propose[d] a fair use defense so broad that it would swallow the copyright protections that Congress has created." So what would such a fair use defense entail?

To be sure, this Court can envision certain circumstances in which a defendant sued for file-sharing could assert a plausible fair use defense. Indeed, an amicus brief previously filed in this consolidated action by the Berkman Center at the Harvard Law School (on which Defendant's counsel was a signatory) outlined some of those circumstances--for example, the defendant who 'deleted the MP3 files after sampling them, or created MP3 files exclusively for space-shifting purposes from audio CDs they had previously purchased.' The Court can also envision a fair use defense for a defendant who shared files during a period of time before the law concerning file-sharing was clear and paid outlets were readily available.

The advent of the internet in the late 1990s threw a number of norms into disarray, offering sudden access to a wealth of digitized media and giving the veneer of privacy or anonymity to acts that had public consequences. At the beginning of this period, both law and technology were unsettled. A defendant who shared files online during this interregnum but later shifted to paid outlets once the law became clear and authorized sources available would present a strong case for fair use. It might matter, too, who the defendant shared files with--his friends, or the world--as well as how many copyrighted works, and for how long.

But the Defendant has offered no facts to suggest that he fits within these categories. He is accused of sharing hundreds of songs over a number of years, far beyond the infancy of this new technology or any legal uncertainty.

As with the Jammie Thomas case, it makes you wonder how things would have been different with better legal counsel. Either way, unless there are any major developments, we're unlikely to talk about the day-to-day events of this trial until a ruling is made.

10 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Class Action Lawsuit Against The RIAA For 'Stolen' Money?

from the this-won't-end-well dept

A bunch of folks have been submitting the story about how Jammie Thomas' new lawyer, Kiwi Camara (a Charlie Nesson protege) and Nesson himself are apparently preparing to file a class action lawsuit against the RIAA in an attempt to get back the $100 million plus that they claim the industry "stole" in its settlements. This may be interesting from an academic standpoint (or from a PR/circus standpoint), but I have difficulty believing it will get very far in terms of actually succeeding. I do find the settlements distasteful, and bordering on extortion ("pay up or we sue" is really questionable), but earlier attempts at similar lawsuits haven't gone very far at all. Still, considering that the RIAA has always insisted that its entire legal campaign was part of a grossly misguided and ultimately self-damaging "PR campaign" perhaps it's okay that someone is effectively doing the same thing on the other side.

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..

File Sharing, Damages And The Constitution...

from the getting-into-the-legal-weeds dept

Doug Lichtman is a well known intellectual property law professor who is a fairly big supporter of the copyright system. He's reached out to us, because of a podcast he recently recorded discussing the Joel Tenenbaum lawsuit. To be honest, I'd pretty much stopped covering anything to do with that lawsuit, because over the last couple of months, it's turned into something of a circus side-show, with both sides running around and making decisions as if they've never actually been in a court of law before. Even the judge has been making mistakes.

However, Lichtman specifically was hoping for the perspective of folks around here on the podcast, because (as he noted in his email), most of his listeners tend to be strongly pro-copyright, and he was hoping to at least find out what those of us less sure of the benefits of copyright think. To be honest, after listening to the podcast twice, it may be a bit too down in the legal weeds for many readers here -- though, if you really are interested in the legal specifics, have a listen. The first part involves Lichtman talking to Charles Nesson himself about the case, followed by three "legal experts" and then a guy from the RIAA who seems to honestly believe that the RIAA's lawsuit strategy was a success because it taught more people that file sharing was illegal. This is wrong on many different levels, since it clearly didn't impact user behavior, and has created other problems, such as the false belief in some that all file sharing is illegal (even of authorized content) and has framed the RIAA as being anti-consumer, making it that much harder for the major record labels to eventually make the shift in business models that are necessary to succeed these days.

The overall "conclusion" that Lichtman comes to is that Nesson and Tenenbaum are likely to lose the case, as precedent suggests that courts will likely find the statutory damages in the copyright act to be within the range of being constitutional. I actually agree that this is the likely outcome, though I find it, and the reasoning behind it, quite troubling. I also hope that, when (if) the case really goes to trial, Nesson has worked up a better argument than he gave on the podcast. While he does raise some good points, a lot of it feels like he only has a superficial understanding of both what's happening and the law itself. When really pressed on legal issues by Lichtman, he resorted to an emotional argument ("it's just a kid clicking on links!") which hardly is legally compelling.

However, in listening to the "experts," it sounds like it would be possible to make a more compelling case against the statutory rates by pointing out some rather simple facts: file sharing, in and of itself, creates no damage for artists -- and thus, the statutory rates have nothing to do with being a "remedy," but have everything to do with being punitive, which would make it a criminal issue, rather than a civil one.

Now, I can hear the copyright supporters (including Lichtman) shouting that it's ridiculous to claim that file sharing creates no damages for the artists -- but that's not what I said. I said, file sharing in and of itself creates no damage. And that's easily proven: just point to the increasingly large number of artists who have embraced file sharing on purpose and who have found that it's helped them earn more money. Then, what you realize is that file sharing combined with a bad business model may create damages, but those damages may be alleviated by putting in place a better business model (again, pointing to evidence of artists who have done exactly that). At that point, the "damages" have gone away. The fault is almost entirely on the part of the artist who picked a bad business model, and then did nothing to alleviate the problem when it became clear that the market was going in a different direction.

In that case, there's no actual evidence of damages, and it's difficult to see the constitutionality of charging someone $750, let alone $150,000, when there's no actual evidence of damages -- and the only actual "damage" may have been caused by the artist themselves by picking a bad business model.

Part of my problem with all of these discussions is that copyright supporters seem to automatically assume that file sharing must be bad -- but there's plenty of evidence to counter that, with artists' wide embrace of it (successfully in many cases) being exhibit A. If file sharing was really so damaging, there would be no such examples. But we see more and more every day. So it's not file sharing that's the problem. The real problem is a bad business model combined with file sharing. And it's rather ridiculous to fine Joel Tenenbaum (or anyone) because some record labels and musicians chose a bad business model.

38 Comments | Leave a Comment..

All-Star Witness List In Lawsuit Over Constitutionality Of RIAA Lawsuits

from the that's-quite-a-witness-list dept

Last month we had mentioned how Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson was taking on the RIAA's strategy of suing music uploaders by claiming that the laws the RIAA was relying on were unconstitutional. That case ("the Tenenbaum case") started moving forward this week, and the Associated Press had a story at the beginning of the week, which about fifty people submitted (with some angrily wondering why we hadn't written about it). We didn't write about it because it was basically the same story we had covered in October.

However, there is some interesting news in the case, as Ray Beckerman has posted the proposed witness list put forth by Tenenbaum's legal team and it is quite the star-studded list. It's becoming quite clear (if it wasn't already) that this is a case where a bunch of different folks in the "copyfighting" realm are converging to confront the RIAA's legal strategy. The list includes:

• John Perry Barlow (former songwriter for The Grateful Dead, founder of the EFF, and well known digital thinker)
• Prof. Johan Pouwelse (technical and scientific director of European research project P2P-Next)
• Prof. Lawrence Lessig (needs no introduction, I imagine, for folks around here)
• Matthew Oppenheim (who has a somewhat murky relationship with the RIAA, at times representing the RIAA, and at other times insisting he does not represent the RIAA)
• Prof. Terry Fisher (a director of Harvard's Berkman Center and author of Promises to Keep, an early book looking at how the internet was changing the entertainment industry, and how it's business models need to change)
• Prof. Wendy Seltzer (well known copyfighter, law professor, former staff attorney at the EFF and founder of the Chilling Effects site)
• Prof. John Palfrey (Harvard law professor, co-director of the Berkman Center, author of Born Digital)
• Prof. Jonathan Zittrain (Harvard and Oxford law professor, co-director of the Berkman Center, author of The Future of the Internet)
• Andrew Grant (former antipiracy specialist at DRM company Macrovision)

That is quite the all-star list. This case is going to be a fun one to watch.

22 Comments | Leave a Comment..