A US District Court judge on Friday ordered Joel Tenenbaum, a Boston Ph.D student, to pay record labels at least $67, 500 in damages for illegally sharing music files over peer-to-peer file-sharing networks.
Judge Nancy Gertner of the US District Court – Massachusetts has reduced the damages awards against Tenenbaum to one-tenth of the original fine, from $675, 000 to $67, 500.
In her ruling, the judge expressed belief that the new fine was still excessive. But she said that it would deter other lawbreakers from conducting similar activities on the Internet.
“There is no question that this reduced award is still severe, even harsh. It not only adequately compensates the plaintiffs for the relatively minor harm that [Joel] Tenenbaum caused them; it sends a strong message that those who exploit peer-to-peer networks to unlawfully download and distribute copyrighted works run the risk of incurring substantial damages awards,” Gertner said in her order.
It will be recalled that Tenenbaum was asked to pay the original sum after the jury found him “guilty” of illegal file-sharing activities over P2P networks.
In August 2009, a group of record companies has filed charges against the plaintiff for downloading and sharing at least 30 music files online.
The jury even said that Tenenbaum has to pay at least $22, 500 per song, which was later lowered down by the judge after he filed for an appeal to reduce the damages awards.
Meanwhile, Tenenbaum’s legal counsel said that they will file for a retrial, saying that they feel vindicated when Gertner agreed to lower down the damage.
“It is only a step along the way toward recognizing the abusiveness of the [Recording Industry Association of America's] litigation campaign. The next step is to demonstrate that Joel was denied a fair jury trial when Judge Gertner told the jury in her instructions that it could award an unconstitutionally excessive amount,” the lawyer said.
Sigh, a cut by is a subtraction, not the new ratio, so:
“Abusive Judge Cuts Commercial Extortion of Scapegoat by 90%”
The Judge was abusing his position because he gave biased advice to the Jury; he failed to tell them that they could also consider the validity of the laws being used against the individual, not just any the breach of these laws!