Appeals Court Reinstates $675,000 Jury Award Against Joel Tenenbaum On Procedural Grounds

from the too-bad dept

Back in April, we went through the entire appeals court hearing concerning the appeal of Judge Nancy Gertner's reduction of the jury award in the Joel Tenenbaum case as "constitutionally excessive." The jury had awarded $675,000 or $22,500 per song. Gertner reduced it to $67,500, or $2,250, and argued that the higher rate was just ridiculous. Unlike Judge Michael Davis, who did something similar in the Jammie Thomas case, Gertner did not use the "remittitur" process.

As happens often enough in such things, almost nothing that was heard during the oral hearings really mattered in the decision. The question of due process and remittitur didn't even make it into the hearing -- or if it did, it was a very minor part that didn't make an impact. And yet, that issue was central to the court reinstating the original $675,000 award.

The key points here are really procedural. The court notes that Gertner jumped to the constitutional question, which judges are supposed to avoid if they can. The court also suggests that Gertner should have used the remittitur process, like Judge Davis, allowing the record labels to (as they would have) reject the lower amount and redo the trial. Of course, as we've seen in the Jammie Thomas situation, that seems to lead to a series of wasteful cases.

To summarize: the court here basically avoided the big questions and sent the ruling back, and reinstating the jury award because Judge Gertner jumped the gun, and went straight to the Constitutional questions, when there were still other steps in the process that needed to be taken. This seems disappointing and wasteful in terms of resources, but such are the rules.

Separately, the court, as pretty much everyone not named Tenenbaum or Nesson suspected, didn't give any weight at all to Tenenbaum's separate appeal arguing that the Copyright Act itself was unconstitutional. These arguments were never going to persuade the court, and seemed more like (wasteful) academic exercises all along. In particular, the court eviscerates the idea that mere "consumers" should be treated differently by copyright law than those who are doing more than consuming. It notes that such a distinction is not mentioned by Congress anywhere, and if it wanted to amend copyright law to fix that, it's had plenty of time.

So, for the most part, this ruling is procedural... though it does go out of its way to note that "this case raises concerns about application of the Copyright Act which Congress may wish to examine." Of course, by now we know that if Congress opened up the Copyright Act to tinker, the end result would almost certainly be worse.

Either way, I'm assuming this case is far from over, and Tenenbaum, Nesson and some other Harvard Law students will keep banging the drum -- though, to date, it hasn't been all that successful. This is definitely a disappointing ruling, but hardly a surprising one.

Filed Under: appeal, copyright, damages, joel tenenbaum

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    Jay (profile), 17 Sep 2011 @ 11:25pm

    Re: Re:

    " You appear instead to be looking at this as another way someone can sneak out of their liability under the law. "

    Actually, no. That's your own assertion. But hey, if that's your opinion, you can say it as long as you want.

    " In this case, it would be sneaking out by making the burden of proving the loss so high, as to be meaningless for both sides."

    Who said that the proving the loss is such a high margin? Again, that's your assertion, based on what? A correlation of piracy decreasing recorded CD sales, when the music industry is doing much better? When artists are making more money through crowdsourcing, alternate distribution, or just plain free music on authorized sites?

    I have a hard time believing someone that can do nothing other than insult me. I have an even harder time believing someone who says I'm "delusional, ignorant, or an idiot" based on the fact that I've backed up my claims from research, proving the legal issue is pointless. So yes, I disagree with you. If you can show anything that the RIAA lawsuits actually caused a drop in piracy, feel free to present it. If you have something that says the copyright enforcement angle has worked in the UK, US, India, or any other country without looking draconian, I'll be surprised. If the law should be changed, it should bring down the punishments to a more reasonable level that isn't an exorbitant sum. As I pointed out in my original post with you, how anyone can look at this situation and say it's justified, when I've pointed out the jury instructions, the actual law, and the very results of it through the results of Tenenbaum's, Thomas' and Harper's court cases, I have no idea.

    If the best you can do is say all of these bad things about me, it shows that your argument isn't up to par. Your loss, not mine.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.