AfterDawn: News

Joel Tenenbaum has file sharing verdict reinstated

Joel Tenenbaum, the graduate student who was convicted of illegally sharing 30 tracks via P2P has had his original massive damages verdict reinstated.

Tenenbaum was originally fined $675,000, but the fine was reduced to $67,500 last summer, after a judge deemed the original penalty unconstitutional and "excessive."



Seeking an even further reduction, Tenenbaum has been rejected, and his initial reduction has also been reversed back to $675,000.

DigitalTrends explains that the main issue the appeals court had with the original reduction was that the ruling Judge "jumped over other procedures and went directly to the constitutional argument."

In a perfect world, Judges should "exhaust all other options for jumping to the Constitution for support."

Written by: Andre Yoskowitz @ 18 Sep 2011 21:01

• Previous article

• RIM drops price of PlayBook for Rogers employees

• Next article

• CyanogenMod7 for HP TouchPad almost ready

• 13 comments

• Thoatih12

  I dont see how sharing 30 songs is worthy of a fine as large as $675,000, thats a little excessive. where is this number brought from?
  

  
  

  18.9.2011 21:31 #1

• scorpNZ

  lol..@ mention of "jumped over other procedures and went directly to the constitutional argument"..is that the short answer of haven't dragged on long enough for lawyers etc to make more money
  

  18.9.2011 21:43 #2

• hikaricor

  Pfft who needs a constitution when we have all these other rules which were established later which generate way higher profits?

  18.9.2011 23:13 #3

• jonyjoe101

  In the constitution there is suppose to be something against "cruel or unusual punishment", this definitely falls under both category's.
  Rule one when the gestapo comes to arrest you deny everything, then say I want to talk to a lawyer. Nobody in the government is your friend. They all work for "the man".
  

  18.9.2011 23:38 #4

• Hopium

  wait till the tea party hears this. oh wait no media pays attention to the atrocities happening on net legislation and IP.
  
  @hikaricor lol, i thought the same. that means http://www.art404.com/5million.html is worth alot more now. im thinking about buying and external just to fill it and think of it as my way of buying gold :P

  19.9.2011 00:39 #5

• numscull

  Now it will be appealled and knocked back down to $67,500. The merry-go-round continues. The RIAA lawyers have found a cash cow to endlessly milk.

  19.9.2011 02:09 #6

• KillerBug

  Quote:DigitalTrends explains that the main issue the appeals court had with the original reduction was that the ruling Judge "jumped over other procedures and went directly to the constitutional argument."
  Yeah...who needs the constitution anyway?

  19.9.2011 02:47 #7

• ZippyDSM

  No profit no crime............
  

  Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy!
  Ah modern gaming its like modern film only the watering down of fiction and characters is replaced with shallow and watered down mechanics, gimmicks and shiny-er "people".
  http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/

  19.9.2011 10:08 #8

• Mysttic

  Oh didn't yea hear, the RIAA managed to meet privately with said judge to show him why the constitution should have no merit. I believe the judge was convinced with a suitcase loaded with enough Franklin's for the judge to say RIAA has this win.

  19.9.2011 14:36 #9

• llongtheD

  It's sad that the RIAA can't move on. It's apparent that they just don't have the creativity to come up with a successful business model in this changing market.
  Chasing college students for a few bucks, its sad, just sad.
  

  If your fish seems sick, put it back in the water.

  19.9.2011 23:17 #10

• hearme0

  Originally posted by Thoatih12: I dont see how sharing 30 songs is worthy of a fine as large as $675,000, thats a little excessive. where is this number brought from? You don't see it because IT'S NOT WORTH THAT. Songs will never ever ever generate that amount of cash..........F'ing PERIOD. This guy is getting screwed. These prick judges need to recognize that artists make their money on concerts and touring with 35 dollar T-shirts and 60 dollar sweatshirts and 3 dollar bumper stickers and 8 dollar beers and 4 dollar sodas, NOT ALBUM SALES.

  20.9.2011 01:51 #11

• patrick_

  FIRST you verify if something is legal according to the constitution, and after that you check other laws right? That's the whole point of having a consitution. Did this judge smoke something bad?
  

  20.9.2011 03:07 #12

• xtago

  Originally posted by hearme0: Originally posted by Thoatih12: I dont see how sharing 30 songs is worthy of a fine as large as $675,000, thats a little excessive. where is this number brought from? You don't see it because IT'S NOT WORTH THAT. Songs will never ever ever generate that amount of cash..........F'ing PERIOD. This guy is getting screwed. These prick judges need to recognize that artists make their money on concerts and touring with 35 dollar T-shirts and 60 dollar sweatshirts and 3 dollar bumper stickers and 8 dollar beers and 4 dollar sodas, NOT ALBUM SALES. I have to say When Brittany spears was touring in Australia last time one of the staff had a video up on you tube which had a manager or boss talking to another staff member who asked the question "how does she [britney spears] make money if the concerts doesn't make any money and the boss guy starts saying it's via the royalties from radio etc." he stopped talked once he seen the staff member with camera walking around.
  
  which was interesting, as the guy stops straight away and kinder piss that something might have been recorded

  20.9.2011 07:54 #13