Friday, October 16, 2009

Labels to Tenenbaum: 'complain, lobby, or blog' all you want; just quit infringing our copyrights

The plaintiffs in the Joel Tenenbaum case have filed a reply in support of their motion for entry of judgment (including a request for an injunction prohibiting Tenenbaum from further infringement) following their July 31 trial victory over the admitted peer-to-peer infringer. The labels decline to address the various irrelevancies Tenenbaum argued in his opposition, and make crystal clear that -- contrary to the overheated rhetoric in Tenenbaum's brief -- they are not seeking to bar the Boston University grad student from expressing his views on copyright and his litigation opponents:
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


  1. 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.

  2. @Anonymous:

    What 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.


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.