Contrary to Defendant’s contention, Plaintiffs are not seeking to limit or prevent Defendant or his counsel from discussing this case or the perceived policy issues implicated by this case in any forum they choose.... Plaintiffs...are not trying to stifle any debate Defendant wishes to engage in and the proposed injunction does not seek to limit his First Amendment right to complain, lobby, or blog about anything he likes.Once Judge Gertner enters judgment, Tenenbaum is expected to file a motion to reduce the jury's $675,000 award on the grounds that it is constitutionally excessive. A ruling on a similar motion by Jammie Thomas-Rasset, who was ordered by a Minneapolis jury to pay the labels $1.92 million for similar infringement, could come any day.
Reply Re Motion for Entry of Judgment
Posts
That's funny because it directly contradicts their original injunction order, where apparently a tweet and its associated "promotion" is what they want to ban. Sounds like these guys saw how ridiculous their request was and backed it off.
ReplyDelete@Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteWhat the the plaintiffs referenced in their motion was his link to specific infringing content -- not simply abstract advocacy on copyright. But I agree that the request in the injunction for a ban on using the web to "promote or advertise using the Internet or any online media distribution system to infringe copyrights, except pursuant to a lawful license or with the express authority of Plaintiffs" was probably overbroad.