The decision comes after the Supreme Court declined to look at the case on Constitutional Grounds earlier this year, and the 1st Circuit Court of Appeal reinstated the original verdict a year ago. In its decision last year, the appeal court said that if a new judge assigned to the case could reduce the award again if it granted the record labels a new trial.

US District Court judge Rya Zobel ruled that the damages were proportionate given his attitude and claims he had infringed “for at least eight years, from 1999 to 2007.” He was also criticized heavily for not admitting straight away.

“In spite of the overwhelming evidence from which the jury could conclude that Tenenbaum’s activities were willful, the award of $22,500 per infringement not only was at the low end of the range – only 15% of the statutory maximum – for willful infringement, but was below the statutory maximum for non-willful infringement. Considering all of the aforementioned evidence, the jury’s damage award was not so excessive as to merit remittitur.”

The constitutional aspect of the appeal – that the damages awarded were excessive – also didn’t stand up to the 80yo Carter-administration-appointee. . Referring to the Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999, she notes that these large sums are intended by Congress for this exact reason, and so dismissed that argument too.

“Given the deference afforded Congress’ statutory award determination and the public harms it was designed to address, the particular behavior of plaintiff in this case as explained above, and the fact that the award not only is within the range for wilful infringement but also below the limit for non-willful infringement, the award is neither “wholly disproportioned to the offense” nor “obviously unreasonable.” It does not offend due process.”

There has been no comment from the RIAA, Sony, or the Tenenbaum defense at this time.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The video, showing President Obama singing “Let’s Stay Together” mixed with references to lobbyists, was hit with a DMCA notice from “BMG_Rights_Management”.

The video was hit by a DMCA notice Monday night, less than 12 hours after being released. Opinion on the takedown is mixed, with ArsTechnica opining that the video was probably fair use, a position the Romney campaign holds.

However, as it was a formal notice, even if successfully contended, it will be more than a week before the video can be restored, long after the ‘news cycle’ has moved on to other stories.

It’s far from the first time that takedown notices have been used in such an abusive process, helped mainly by the way penalties for misuse of the DMCA have been completely ignored. Nor is it the first time that a Republican Presidential Candidate has had copyright issues. 4 years ago Sen. John McCain had a number of brushes with infringement (despite being backed by the RIAA CEO).

Then again, If Romney wins it is unlikely that he will remember the ways copyright laws have been abused to stifle speech.

But will his administration be as bad as Obama’s has been so far?

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

But in July 2010, the severe punishment handed out to the Boston student was in the spotlight.

Judge Nancy Gertner ruled in Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum that the awarded damages were both excessive and unconstitutional. She slashed the jury-awarded damages by 90% to $67,500 – $2,250 for each of 30 infringed works.

Unhappy, Tenenbaum lodged an appeal, as did the RIAA, and in April this year both parties were back in court before Chief Judge Sandra L. Lynch, Judge Juan R. Torruella, and Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson at the 1st Circuit Court of Appeal in Boston.

In its decision released yesterday, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals reversed U.S. District Court Judge Nancy Gertner’s decision. Although the appeal court did not necessarily disagree with the response to the constitutional question, it found that Judge Nancy Gertner should not have considered it.

“Citing the doctrine of ‘constitutional avoidance,’ which dictates that courts should avoid tackling constitutional issues unnecessarily, the court found that Judge Gertner should first have considered using a procedure called ‘remittitur‘,” explains EFF Intellectual Property Director Corynne McSherry.

“Under this procedure, she could have lowered the damages amount, but, if the record companies chose not to accept the new amount, they could have asked for a new trial.”

“A decision on a constitutional due process question was not necessary, was not inevitable, had considerable impermissible consequences, and contravened the rule of constitutional avoidance,” wrote Chief Judge Sandra L. Lynch in her decision.

“That rule had more than its usual import in this case because there were a number of difficult constitutional issues which should have been avoided but were engaged.”

Noting that this has been a difficult case, the Court found against Tenenbaum and in favor of the plaintiffs, Sony BMG.

“We have, inter alia, rejected Tenenbaum’s arguments that the Copyright Act is unconstitutional under Feltner, 523 U.S. 340, that the Act exempts so-called ‘consumer copying’ infringement from liability and damages, that statutory damages under the Act are unavailable without a showing of actual harm, that the jury’s instructions were in error, and his various trial error claims,” wrote Judge Lynch.

“We vacate the district court’s due process damages ruling and reverse the reduction of the jury’s statutory damages award. We reinstate the jury’s award of damages and remand for consideration of plaintiff’s motion for common law remittitur based on excessiveness.”

So yet again, in common with the case against Jamie Thomas, Joel Tenenbaum’s case grinds on while serving no obvious purpose.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Quantifying its ‘losses’ in court, the four labels claimed illegal downloading costs the Irish music industry 13.8 million Euros every year, and since Eircom has 40 per cent of the ISP market, it must be held responsible for causing the industry losses of between 4 and 5 million Euros. Further details about the case are available in our previous report.

The case, which was due to run for 4 weeks, was cut short this evening after just eight days. According to an RTE report it has ended after a fairly shocking and unexpected development. The ‘Big Four’, headed by the IFPI, have reached an “amicable” settlement with Eircom.

In an agreement believed to be a world first, EMI, Sony BMG, Universal and Warner will start tracking the IP addresses of alleged infringers and supply the details to the ISP. Eircom has agreed that it will ultimately disconnect infringers from the Internet.

Essentially, Eircom has agreed to implement a “3 Strikes” regime against its own customers. On the first allegation the customer will get a warning. On the second allegation they will be informed that if they do not stop their activities, disconnection will follow. On the third, it’s Internet blackout time.

The Chairman of EMI said he now expects other ISPs to follow suit – serious pressure will be brought down on them immediately.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.