Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Record labels move for entry of judgment in Joel Tenenbaum case; cite Pirate Bay promotion

The plaintiffs in the Joel Tenenbaum case have moved for entry of judgment in their favor, and have asked the court to permanently enjoin Tenenbaum from further infringing their copyrights. The record labels, whom a Boston jury awarded $675,000 for downloading and "sharing" 30 of their songs, cite Tenenbaum's long history of using peer-to-peer software to obtain music without paying for it, his unrepentant attitude since the July 31 verdict, and his team's promotion of a Pirate Bay collection of 30 songs at issue, available for easy download:
In short, despite the verdict and a clear finding of willful copyright infringement by Defendant, he continues to promote, indeed advertise, illegal online file-sharing of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings—the very sound recordings for which a jury found him liable for willful copyright infringement. As such, a broad injunction enjoining Defendant from engaging in continued online copyright infringement, or acting in concert with others in committing copyright infringement, is necessary.
The entry of judgment will start the clock ticking toward the filing of post-trial motions (including a constitutional attack on the size of the verdict), as well as a probable appeal.
Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Judgment


  1. The Records labels need to be very careful of their wording of "he continues to promote, indeed advertise, illegal online file-sharing of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings" since they are relying on a comment via twitter that states "interesting" which could be construed as individual opinion by any reasonable person and is by any definition absolutely Interesting . You yourself Ben and other news outlets noted via including it in a "news worthy" article that the torrent(s) in question were of interest.

    The other point they might raise is that Mr Tenenbaum's image was used on PirateBay site as promotion. Was he aware? Did he give consent? Did they use his Image in a "Fair Use" or Political/Speech way? We will most likely never know. Thereby stating that he in some way he is colluding with others that the Plaintiff and Court has no jurisdictional power to enjoin at this time is bordering on tortious (interference) grounds.

    For a court to permanently enjoin someone should require more weighty evidence than that alleged by the Plaintiffs in this instance, especially in regard to the "acting in concert with others" statement.

    On a lighter note I notice they do not ask to prohibit "offline" infringement? Strange! :)

  2. Three words describe the last part of this motion: unconstitutional prior restraint.

  3. Anonymous, it's not exactly "prior," right?


Comments here are moderated. I appreciate substantive comments, whether or not they agree with what I've written. Stay on topic, and be civil. Comments that contain name-calling, personal attacks, or the like will be rejected. If you want to rant about how evil the RIAA and MPAA are, and how entertainment companies' employees and attorneys are bad people, there are plenty of other places for you to go.