tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post8802722448594260344..comments2024-01-23T07:34:52.253-08:00Comments on Copyrights & Campaigns: Tenenbaum claims labels 'added' songs to case; documents show otherwiseBen Sheffnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-37335924271311376522009-07-12T06:59:14.179-07:002009-07-12T06:59:14.179-07:00Anonymous 5:58 said:
"Presumably one's de...Anonymous 5:58 said:<br />"Presumably one's defense and settlement strategy depends on what the possible liability is."<br />Are you saying that Tenenbaum would reject a $3,000-$5,000 settlement offer if he thought his liability could be $1.05 million, but not $4.5 million?<br />In any case, it seems to me that if you took 800 songs and that is stated in the Complaint, you should calculate the expected value of damages on 800, and be happy if it is less than that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-59157588998149661512009-07-11T18:10:20.279-07:002009-07-11T18:10:20.279-07:00@Anonymous 5:58:
I agree with you that it wouldn&...@Anonymous 5:58:<br /><br />I agree with you that it wouldn't seem fair if the labels implied all along that they were going to sue over some huge number, forcing JT to do a ton of work, and only at the last minute said, "Never mind, we're only going after 30" (especially if that was their intention all along). But according to the defense team's own blog post, the 30 were listed on a "schedule" that they were given in Oct. 2008. I haven't seen the "schedule" and don't know exactly what it says, but if it listed the 30 specific songs, then I don't think the defense has much to complain about. <br /><br />And I think the bottom line is that if JT has to defend against claims on a large number of songs, that's mainly his fault, for having such a large number of songs in his shared folder.Ben Sheffnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-88692816088799890882009-07-11T17:58:16.378-07:002009-07-11T17:58:16.378-07:00Obviously it's all about notice pleading in fe...Obviously it's all about notice pleading in federal court. But suing over 7 songs and 800 is pretty different. Was Tenenbaum supposed to research the copyright holder of every one of the 800 to figure his total possible liability? Presumably one's defense and settlement strategy depends on what the possible liability is. One would think the labels should have notified him earlier the specific songs they claimed ownership of, if for no other reason to allow proper discovery re chain of ownership etc for copyrights.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-24970157071775277782009-07-10T20:41:02.647-07:002009-07-10T20:41:02.647-07:00Ben, moving away from dealing with the troll, and ...Ben, moving away from dealing with the troll, and on to a related subject, Nesson better not argue to the jury that the labels are seeking $4.5 million, because that is exactly what got Jammie Thomas into a $1.92 million verdict. If he goes in there like Camara and says Plaintiffs want $4.5 million at all and plaintiffs come back and say, not at all, we're just asking for whatever the jury deems reasonable, Tenenbaum will suffer the same fate of having the plaintiff look reasonable and the sky high number being put in the jury's mind by defendant, so that they just work down a little from there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-21465353134551700642009-07-10T18:54:34.989-07:002009-07-10T18:54:34.989-07:00Here's exactly what I said in the "Pravda...Here's exactly what I said in the "Pravda" post:<br /><br />"And it is not certain how many songs on which the labels will seek damages among the approximately 800 he had in his shared folder."<br /><br />The point of the post was to show what a terrible job the reporter did. The point I was making about "millions" was that the damages couldn't be "millions" if the premise (which I explicitly said was false) was that the case was only about "7 songs." Obviously, with some combination of the number of songs and a per-song award by the jury, the total could reach into the millions.Ben Sheffnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-65273503251906228112009-07-10T18:48:28.426-07:002009-07-10T18:48:28.426-07:00Funny you never mentioned that you could include f...Funny you never mentioned that you could include far more than the 7 songs to easily arrive at the "millions" claim. Then the claim wouldn't be Russian propaganda...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-55551274026537924852009-07-10T18:41:59.706-07:002009-07-10T18:41:59.706-07:00@Anonymous:
What I actually wrote was: "Even...@Anonymous:<br /><br />What I actually wrote was: "Even by Tenenbaum's own propaganda (which itself ignores most of the relevant facts), the maximum possible award of statutory damages is about $1 million -- not 'millions.'" In other words, if you accept Tenenbaum's "7 songs" premise, then it can't be "millions." But as I also wrote in that post (and in other posts), the "7 songs" claim was false. http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2009/06/russia-today-pravda-of-yesteryear.html<br /><br />I have indeed previously "called out" the fact that the plaintiffs were not suing on just 7 songs. I did so in the very "Pravda" post you mention. And also here: http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2009/05/fisking-charlie-nesson-what-about-joel.html<br /><br />"Tenenbaum is not being sued for "sharing seven songs." Rather, as the record label plaintiffs have said:<br /><br /> Plaintiffs sued Defendant based on substantial evidence that Defendant used the KaZaA file sharing program to upload (distribute) more than 800 sound recordings—including many of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings—to potentially millions of other users on the file sharing network. Plaintiffs also allege that Defendant used KaZaA to download Plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings from other KaZaA users.<br /><br />(emphasis added); see also Complaint at Par. 11 (referring to hundreds of additional "Copyrighted Recordings" listed in Exhibit B). Plaintiffs have not indicated the number of songs on which they intend to seek damages at trial (or in a motion for summary judgment)."Ben Sheffnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-18132452038843370522009-07-10T18:27:32.978-07:002009-07-10T18:27:32.978-07:00That's funny, because in "Pravda of Yeste...That's funny, because in "Pravda of Yesteryear", I could swear you call the "millions in damages" claim false based on using 7 songs, which you've never called out before. So it's 7 when talking damage cap, but "over 800" otherwise.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com