Tenenbaum Admits Copyright Infringement For Music File-Sharing: Part 1 of 2
By Heather Faucher | Posted on August 11, 2009 | Filed Under Copyrights
The copyright infringement case for Boston University graduate student Joel Tenenbaum has been a closely-watched and hotly-contested one. Accused of downloading and uploading music illegally via peer-to-peer (P2P) software, Tenenbaum originally denied the allegations brought against him by the RIAA, going so far as to lie in written discovery responses and denying all responsibility. But when he took the stand at his copyright trial, he finally stopped lying.
“This is me. I’m here to answer,” said Tenenbaum. “I used the computer. I uploaded and downloaded music. This is how it is. I did it,” he testified in a packed courtroom.
“Are you admitting liability for all 30 sound recordings” on which the record labels brought suit, asked the plaintiffs’ attorney Tim Reynolds.
“Yes,” said Tenenbaum.
“Why did you lie at that point?” asked Tenenbaum’s attorney, Harvard Law School professor Charles Nesson.
“It was kind of something I rushed through,” said Tenenbaum. “It’s what seemed the best response to give. He went on to say that, when he gave the admittedly-false discovery responses, he had been acting on the advice of his mother Judith, an attorney employed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Once he gave those clear-cut admissions, he sealed his fate. The admissions of guilt, plus the other evidence showing Tenenbaum’s alleged infringement, prompted plaintiffs to move for a directed verdict in their favor. And Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 supports their request on the grounds of copyright ownership, liability, and willfulness. At the conclusion of plaintiffs’ presentation for a directed verdict, Judge Nancy Gertner–herself no stranger to technology–seemed to indicate she was definitely going to grant the motion as to ownership and liability.
“For all intents and purposes, the ownership and liability issues have been conceded,” she said, but she appeared to believe the issue of willfulness could still be left up to the jury to decide. She promised a ruling on Friday morning in regards to that issue.
During Tenenbaum’s testimony, plaintiffs’ attorney Tim Reynolds walked Tenenbaum methodically through the evidence, extracting scores of one, two, and three-word admissions that he did exactly what plaintiffs have accused him of doing.
Plaintiffs’ attorney had no trouble eliciting admissions from Tenenbaum during his testimony. Time and again he asked questions regarding Tenenbaum’s actions and accountability, and each time the defendant admitted culpability.
“You used KaZaA to download music, right?”
“You used LimeWire to get music without paying for it, right?”
“Your goal was to obtain the maximum amount of music with the minimum amount of wasted effort, right?”
“Yes, I did,” Tenenbaum repeatedly replied in response to Reynolds’ questions.
Among his many admissions: that the MediaSentry screenshots taken in August, 2004 showed an accurate representation of the 800+ song files in his KaZaA shared folder; that he listened to his copies of all 30 songs he was accused of downloading and distributing; and that the plaintiffs’ computer forensics expert, Dr. Douglas Jacobson, had reached accurate conclusions. “I trust he’s a competent professional,” said Tenenbaum.
When his own attorney cross-examined him, Tenenbaum stressed that his parents instilled a life-long love of music in him and that he never intended to harm the record labels or the artists themselves. He related his excitement at first encountering Napster: “It was great… It was like this giant library in front of you with all sorts of songs… It’s all up there… It’s like the Google of music… You have this list of songs, and you can get them really easily.” Did he think about whether or not it was legal? “I guess it wasn’t foremost in my mind…Now I’m thinking a lot more about whether it’s illegal.”
At that point, the only difficult decision for the jury to make became how much damages Tenenbaum should pay to the RIAA. They could award the record labels anywhere from $750 per work up to $30,000 per work–or even up to a staggering $150,000 per work should they find Tenenbaum’s infringement to be willful. Judge Gertner struck another blow to the defense when she revealed that she would instruct the jury that “willful infringement is that committed with knowledge of or ‘reckless disregard’ for the plaintiffs’ copyrights,” rejecting a heightened standard put forth by Tenenbaum’s defense that would have required the plaintiffs prove Tenenbaum’s intent to profit commercially.
Trying to find out if something is protect by a copyright? Find more information here.
About this Post
Tags: copyright infringement, Copyrights, music piracy
Permalink | Trackback |
|
Print This Article | Leave a Comment
Comments
Leave a Reply
The opinions and information on this blog are not intended as legal advice. They are for informational and entertainment purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. Click here for the full disclaimer.
Other Resources
