The US Supreme Court has refused to hear the Joel Tenenbaum case in a case brought by the Recording Industry Association Of America's which resulted in a win for the RIAA and damages of
$675,000 awarded by the jury for illegally sharing 30 songs online. The damages were then reduced 90% by the trial judge Nancy Gertner on constitutional grounds but the appeals court subsequently criticised the judge's process, and reinstated the $675,000 damages sum. Tenenbaum's legal advisor Charles Nesson (pictured) hoped to persuade the Supreme Court that his client's damages were indeed unconstitutionally high and that Judge Gertner was correct when reducing the award. But the Supreme Court declined to hear Nesson's arguments yesterday, meaning Team Tenenbaum will have to continue to fight the damages sum in the lower courts, which could involve several more hearings and appeals yet.
Tenenbaum has said publicly that he (unsurprisingly) doesn't have $675,000, and has previously suggested he'd have to bankrupt himself if that figure stood.
From www.thecmuwebsite.com and see http://articles.boston.com/2012-05-22/metro/31802695_1_copyright-joel-tenenbaum-downloading-music and http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/325282
1 comment:
Am I right in thinking that the US Supreme court has only refused to let the Tenenbaum case bypass the remittur stages in the lower courts and jump straight to the Supreme court? Is this 'we won't hear it' or is it 'we won't hear it yet, you've not exhausted the lower courts'?
Post a Comment