Case Update
“Joel, we haven’t heard from you in a while! Is it over?”
Hi everyone! Thanks so much for checking in with us. The case is definitely not over; rather, we’re in a holding pattern waiting for Judge Gertner’s decision regarding our remittitur motion. (See the details in our blog post)
We asked the court to adjust the amount of the award, as was done in the Thomas case. The difference here is that Judge Gertner has the foresight of the Thomas case. There Judge Davis granted remittitur to $54k or new trial. The labels offered a $25k settlement to Thomas with the remittitur verdict redacted, which she then rejected. The labels opted for a new trial. In our hearing back in February, the conversation with Judge Gertner went something like this:
Gertner: If I do as Judge Davis did in the Thomas case, would you likely do as the Plaintiffs have done in the Thomas case?
Reynolds (one of the RIAA’s attorneys): Yes.
So it seems like if Judge Gertner grants remittitur, the music labels will request a new trial. Or she may grant a new trial based on our motion for one. Or, she may just allow the jury’s decision to hold Joel liable for $675,000 for sharing 30 songs.
What do you think she should do?
I think she should just toss the verdict and declare Joel not liable on the grounds that copyright was never meant to disallow noncommercial copying. Copyright was drafted only to prevent copying with a for profit motive.
That would be a radical judgment indeed, and probably easily appealed by plaintiffs. But it’s the correct legal interpretation, even if it’s not a popular one.
I feel bad for Joel. I doubt there will be a solution to this issue in the judiciary or Congress until there’s been prolonged and widespread civil disobedience. It’s prohibition all over again.
“It’s prohibition all over again.”
Not quite. The beer might have been illegal back then but at least they were paying for what they were drinking.
“The beer might have been illegal back then but at least they were paying for what they were drinking.”
Except that when you drink beer, you reduce the amount of beer that is available for other people. When you copy a song, you do not reduce the amount of music in the world; in fact, you increase the number of copies of that music, and protect it from being lost when other copies are destroyed.
Copying is not theft.
“Copying is not theft.”
True enough. It’s still an abuse of reasonable privacy expectation to sneak and take something for free that you know is actually for sale. Split hairs all you like and tell it to the judge.
The greatest justice in this entire smarmy farce is watching a legal visionary committed to the destruction of capitalism using a real tool….. as the real tool he truly is.
Committed to the destruction of capitalism? Really?
This trial is biased. Guilty until proven innocent. The RIAA used illegal evidence since they invaded privacy and failed to present proof of damages. The only reason Sony won the Betamax decision was because they were as rich as Universal. Sony used to be cool.
Fuck this copyright shit and these RIAA fucktards. If I want to download a song, I’ll do it! They can’t stop me!