by Mike Masnick
Fri, Nov 18th 2011 3:05pm
This one is hardly a surprise. We've been arguing for a while now that the choices by Joel Tenenbaum and his lawyers in his file sharing case haven't made much sense. They've been arguing the case in a manner that basically begs the court to go against them. I really don't understand the legal strategy here at all. Back in September, you may recall, the appeals court reinstated the $675,000 award against him for file sharing 30 songs. That had been the original jury award, that had been unilaterally reduced by the judge in the district court. However, the appeals court noted that the judge basically used the wrong procedure to do this, and had to first give Sony Music the option to redo the case. In other words, the entire issue at this point was a procedural issue. Thus, I can't fathom why Tenenbaum and his legal team again tried to argue on the merits at this stage. It's not the right time for that argument... but they still went ahead and asked to rehear the issue with the full slate of judges on the appeals court. That request has been rejected, as pretty much everyone expected. Even worse, it sounds like Tenenbaum's didn't just not focus on the procedural issue at hand, but also sought to talk about larger issues, like how statutory rates were a way to go after a "generation of kids." Whether or not we agree with that general sentiment, there's a time and place to bring that up... and this wasn't it. What's really dumb here is that this seems to undermine whatever small chance he might have had if the case was argued in good faith.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Even If The State Of Georgia Can Copyright Legal Annotations, Should It?
- Topsite Operator, Who Admitted To Operating Servers With Tons Of Pirated Movies, Gets Off With Just Probation
- State Of Georgia Sues Carl Malamud For Copyright Infringement For Publishing The State's Own Laws
- Geniuses Representing Universal Pictures Ask Google To Delist 127.0.0.1 For Piracy
- Aussie Study: Infringers Spend More On Content Than Non-Infringers