Joel Tenenbaum files for new trial
p2pnet news view | RIAA:- Boston student Joel Tenenbaum and Harvard law professor Charles Nesson may be down, but they’re not out.
They’ve filed a motion for a new trial claiming the jury’s $675,000 award is unconstitutional, says Ray Beckerman on Recording Industry vs The People.
Among other things, it violates due process, they say.
“Joel Tenenbaum is the latest American scapegoat for the failure of the Big 4 record labels which, together and separately, control corporate music bidniz, to recognize sales and marketing doctrines of the 1990s can’t, and don’t, work in the digital 21st-century,” said p2pnet last year, going on, “And like Jammie Thomas-Rassett, who’s currently appealing civil jury decision that she owes the Korporate Kopyright Klan $1.92 million for 24 songs, he’s expected to pay a hefty price for their failure.
“Only it’s not as bad as Jammie’s play list price.
“It’s only $675,000 for 30.”
Below are the songs the labels reckon are worth $675,000 >>>
Stay tuned.
..… and identi.ca
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
Recording Industry vs The People – Tenenbaum files motion for new trial attacking constitutionality of jury’s award, January 4, 2010
$1.92 million for 24 songs – Jamie Thomas-Rasset’s $1.92 million playlist, June 9, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/feed
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
January 4th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
All this pile of crap for $675,000?
You would have to pay me to make me listen to this shit.
No Offense.
January 4th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
I don’t understand why Nesson would bring out the “due process” card only now.
It should have been the key point used to challenge the whole thing right from the beginning.
Civil cases shouldn’t be any different from Criminal cases, if commercial-strength damage claims are going to be allowed. The Defendant should not be pronounced guilty before the trial starts, and the onus should be on the Plaintiffs to PROVE ACTUAL DAMAGES. Somehow, these points of law never seem to get any airtime in any of this.
Yeah, but we all know why that is.
January 4th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
He better be careful asking for a new trial. The new jury may increase the amount awarded just like they did in Jammie Thomas-Rasset’s case.
January 4th, 2010 at 11:20 pm
Any news/update on the Oink trial that was suppose to start today?
January 4th, 2010 at 11:54 pm
This is a great appeal. If he gets the new trial on this, it will be on the basis that 675,000 is too much. Thus, any award greater will also be too much.
This may take a while to play out…. I believe the supreme court is the only party that can overturn the verdict on these grounds because they have already ruled on a similar issue in the past.
January 5th, 2010 at 5:48 am
“You would have to pay me to make me listen to this shit.”
Yeah, I agree. And the RIAA thinks this crap is worth $675,000? Maybe Joel should play some of that music and let the court decide if it really IS worth that much. Unless the RIAA decides that is also unfair and ups the already ridiculous fine for ‘copyright infringement in the court of law’. :p
January 5th, 2010 at 10:44 am
“I believe the supreme court is the only party that can overturn the verdict on these grounds”
I don’t think they have actually ever overturned any verdict based on excessive penalties. They have and will overturn the penalty but the guilty verdict will still stand.
January 6th, 2010 at 8:25 am
Those are the 24 thomas songs, not the 30 tenenbaum songs.
January 6th, 2010 at 9:11 am
Damn! Fixed. Thanks.
Cheers!