Monday, January 04, 2010

Tenenbaum files motion for new trial attacking constitutionality of jury's award

In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, defendant has filed a motion for new trial, attacking, among other things, the constitutionality of the jury's award as being violative of due process.

Motion for new trial

Commentary & discussion:

Keywords: lawyer digital copyright law online internet law legal download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie independent label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs intellectual property portable music player


DreadWingKnight said...

Here's hoping he gets it. I'm losing faith in the justice system as a whole as it sits right now.

StephenH said...

I hope he gets a new trial. I think that the "fair use" defense should be allowed. For example, lets say someone downloads a song from a P2P network that they own on CD for their iPod should qualify as fair use.

raybeckerman said...

Comment was rejected because it was replete with misinformation.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps Tenenbaum is crazy like a fox after all. It seems to me that this is the big game, and the case before this was simply the necessary preamble.

3L Student

Anonymous said...

This is the big game? Leading off with arguments that DRM and marketing made him commit infringement? Or that an unredacted confession somehow prejudiced his trial when it had zero relevance to the issues before the jury?

The document is full of spelling and grammatical errors. It commits a number of the cardinal sins of brief writing. And it forces the reader to wade through 20 pages of nonsense before getting to the only moderately relevant argument. To say that this is poor advocacy is an understatement.

Let's face it, this material is more appropriately placed in a law review article or a petition to a congressperson to amend the law. With this brief failing to provide any cogent reason for a new trial (which, with this team of advocates would be an unwise idea, especially given how well it worked out for Jamie Thomas) or citing even a single case where a statutory damage award was overturned as against due process, I can't fathom how this could be anything other than denied.

Reading the plaintiff's response should be very entertaining.


raybeckerman said...

I think they did a decent job on the brief, and that the verdict will be struck down.

raybeckerman said...

I've rejected 2 comments which contained misinformation, and 1 which made an unsupported ad hominem attack on defendant's lawyer.

Nobody Important said...

Maybe this is Neeson's whole strategy all along.

1) Botch the first trial on purpose to "win" an unrealistic and unpayable damages award against the defendant.

2) Appeal the whole process up the chain.

3) Bring all of the shady practices of the RIAA to the forefront of the judicial community.

4) . . . (Guess we'll have to wait on see on this one)

Anonymous said...

Fair and impartial justice, in my opinion, cannot prevail given the number of RIAA lawyers now holding appointments within the judicial system.
Our current administration has set the dominos to fall in a coordinated fashion, at the behest of, and for the benefit of those who believe their profit margins are being reduced due to invention and innovation they do not currently control.

Oldphart in Kansas

Anonymous said...

If I read the brief correctly, I believe Mr. Tenenbaum offered to settle in a letter which was redacted by either the court or plaintiff [as a layman, I would tend to suspect plaintiff, largely because that comes perilously close, from my perspective, to tampering with the trial evidence; and I wouldn't expect even a corrupt judge to be willing to go THAT far. Be that as it may, it's not pertinent here].

The offer was rejected (again, if I read right) before suit was commenced.

Doesn't this set of facts reflect poorly on plaintiff? I reason by analogy from contract law - which requires a payment offered AND accepted - or from the debt collection law - which places collection effort after a legitimate offer to settle is made in a bad light.

-Quiet Lurker

Anonymous said...

::LaLa::: Do you really think a letter enclosed with a money order isn't a settlement offer? Looks like one to me.

3L Student: I don't imagine Nesson's strategy is lose-then-win. AFAIK few people purposely lose cases just so they can do better on appeals, and we have no good reason to think differently here.


Matt Fitzpatrick said...

So... I forgot what the jury's award in this case was. Curious, I reviewed this blog's archives to remind myself.

There it was. $22,500. Per song. Without a single upload from Tenenbaum proven, or -- I assume the boilerplate complaint was used -- even alleged.

Ugh, I feel sick to my stomach. I'd say there's a good shot Judge Gertner got the same feeling.