iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Joel Tenenbaum Boston University Student Download Fine: Court Won't Reduce $675,000 Penalty

Joel Tenenbaum

DENISE LAVOIE   05/21/12 04:35 PM ET  AP

BOSTON — A former Boston University student who was ordered to pay $675,000 for illegally downloading and sharing 30 songs on the Internet says he will continue fighting the penalty, despite the Supreme Court's refusal Monday to hear his appeal.

Joel Tenenbaum, 28, of Providence, R.I., said he's hoping a federal judge will reduce the amount.

"I can't believe the system would uphold a six-figure damages amount for downloading 30 songs on a file-sharing system that everybody used," Tenenbaum said. "I can't believe the court would uphold something that ludicrous."

A jury in 2009 ordered Tenenbaum to pay $675,000, or $22,500 per song, after the Recording Industry Association of America sued him on behalf of four record labels, including Sony BMG Music Entertainment and Warner Brothers Records Inc. A federal judge called the penalty unconstitutionally excessive and reduced the award to $67,500, but the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later reinstated it.

The 1st Circuit said a new judge assigned to the case could reduce the award again, but the record labels would then be entitled to a new trial.

Tenenbaum, who said he just graduated Sunday from the university with a doctorate in statistical physics, said he doesn't have the money to pay the judgment.

"I've been working on a graduate student's stipend for six years now and I have no such money," he said.

Tenenbaum argued that the U.S. Copyright Act is unconstitutional and that Congress did not intend the law to impose liability or damages when the copyright infringements amount to "consumer copying."

During the trial, Tenenbaum admitted he downloaded and shared hundreds of songs by Green Day, Nirvana, The Smashing Pumpkins and others. His lawyer suggested the damages should be as little as 99 cents per song, about the same amount Tenenbaum would have to pay for a legal online song purchase.

Lawyers for the recording industry argued that illegal downloading hurt the recording industry by reducing income and profits. A lawyer for the recording labels described Tenenbaum as a "hardcore" copyright infringer. The association said it offered to settle the case for $5,000 early on, but Tenenbaum declined.

"We're pleased with this decision," RIAA spokeswoman Cara Duckworth said after the Supreme Court's announcement Monday.

In the only other music-downloading case against an individual to go to trial, a judge last year reduced the penalty imposed on a Minnesota woman from $1.5 million to $54,000. An appeals court has scheduled arguments for next month in the case of Jammie Thomas-Rasset.

.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST COLLEGE

Filed by Rebecca Harrington  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 19
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
birdinanest
02:43 PM on 06/19/2012
President Obama should pardon him.
07:48 AM on 05/24/2012
Wow. Good thing I'm not a student.
03:08 PM on 05/22/2012
Clearly the punishment is all out of proportion to the crime. In what way is it justice to enforce a law on one individual when it is unenforced on milllions of others? I have written a petition asking that Tenenbaum's fine be reduced: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/251/385/777/ask-judge-to-reduce-joel-tenenbaums-675k-fine/

If you agree, would you please sign it and share with friends?

Thank you!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
ok3apples
It's all interesting
02:12 AM on 05/22/2012
A fair fine would be what iTunes charges for a down load. So close to $40. End of story.
03:11 PM on 05/22/2012
I absolutely agree! In my petition (http://www.thepetitionsite.com/251/385/777/ask-judge-to-reduce-joel-tenenbaums-675k-fine/), I asked for a fine of $100, but your itunes formula makes a lot of sense.
12:01 AM on 05/22/2012
okay i can understand nirvana, but i'd be piiiiissed if i got charged this obscene fine for green day and smashing pumpkins. it's not even good music! he might as well have been downloading nickelback.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JustinP213
I dislike all political parties.
02:12 PM on 05/22/2012
Woah, back up, sparky. SP and GD made some good songs.
MrStat1
I believe in the rule of law
05:56 PM on 05/21/2012
The guy shold declare bankruptcy. That will end that.
03:46 PM on 05/21/2012
i bought a album back when vinyl was the thing then i bought the same again when cassettes were the thing then i paid good money to buy the same for a third time to listen on cd. if i was fined to download the same album for free on mp3 format i would say i paid 3 times the value and deserve a refund.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
noygdb
can we have cheese with our whine? GOP
03:13 PM on 05/21/2012
i just love how banks can forge foreclosure docs, and never suffer any penalty, but god forbid a student downloads music!! whose the bigger crook?
MrStat1
I believe in the rule of law
05:55 PM on 05/21/2012
This is about law, not banks. Get a grip.
photo
JSiobhan
Learning is Lasik surgery for the mind.
08:16 PM on 05/21/2012
Noygdb is commenting on the bigger picture of American justice on who is forced to face the consequences of their actions-- an individual who is sued for violating copyright laws or a company who allegedly forged documents to foreclose on someone's home. Both are illegal but the individual has been the one who has been brought to court.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
noygdb
can we have cheese with our whine? GOP
11:59 PM on 05/21/2012
wow mr. stat..i hate to call youdumb, but really, you are. get a grip and a brain....are you saying it's not illegal to forge docs?? wow..can you see russia from your porch?
03:00 PM on 05/21/2012
For better or worse, the law says that the penalty is in a certain range (mostly because it was written with crooks making bootleg CDs in mind), the judge declared "this law is unconstitutional because it's too high", the appeals court said "this doesn't meet the standard required for unconstitutionality", and the Supreme Court justices didn't see enough in the transcript to address the issue.

It's not that either the Supreme Court or the Appeals Court made a judgement call of "download 30 files - yeah that should cost you $675,000". They just said that the law has that as the penalty, and the high bar required to show it was unconstitutional wasn't met.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
moonlightesq
02:06 PM on 05/21/2012
The penalty for illegally downloading 30 songs does seems excessive, but the jury must have thought he or his parents can afford it and that is why is was set so high. If he does not have any money, he should filed for BK and wipe the jugement away.
Twisted Words
Somewhere there is a wall waiting for these people
04:09 PM on 05/21/2012
Since when are penalties issued on the basis of affordability? That seems arbitrary. "Sorry, your honor, I cannot afford 30yrs to life. You'll have to reduce that to time served."
10:58 PM on 05/21/2012
In many European countries they do adjust fines based on affordability. It keeps them from becoming a slap on the wrist to rich people.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
moonlightesq
10:07 AM on 05/22/2012
Punitive damages is always based on the ability of the defendant to pay. A separate hearing is held as to defendant's assets and potential earnings before the amount is set. That is why for large corporations, the punitive damage awards can be in the millions.
11:00 PM on 05/21/2012
They did it as a form of reverse collective punishment. They wanted to punish him and a few others for not just his acts of downloading but many people's acts.