Tweet
Joel Tenenbaum, the PhD student fined $675,000 for illegally sharing 30 songs is set to appeal on the grounds that the fine is unconstitutional. He is also claiming that because DRM-free songs weren't available back at the time of his infringement, downloading illegal songs was the only way to the songs he wanted in exactly the format he wanted.
Legal experts say neither argument is likely to succeed, as the unconstitutional defence has never stood up in court. While blaming the lack of DRM songs online ignores the fact that unencrypted CDs were available, which Mr Tenenbaum could have purchased and ripped legally as CDs do not have DRM and so he would not fall foul of the anti-circumvention provisions in the DMCA. Tenenbaum is correct in that studios failed to provide a legal, DRM-free (and thus interoperable) digital version of songs, although switching to piracy as a result seems like an extreme solution to this problem.
The most favourable outcome for Joel Tenenbaum would then be a reduction of the damages from $22,500 per song to something more manageable like $750 per song, the minimum in damages.
More:
Legal experts say neither argument is likely to succeed, as the unconstitutional defence has never stood up in court. While blaming the lack of DRM songs online ignores the fact that unencrypted CDs were available, which Mr Tenenbaum could have purchased and ripped legally as CDs do not have DRM and so he would not fall foul of the anti-circumvention provisions in the DMCA. Tenenbaum is correct in that studios failed to provide a legal, DRM-free (and thus interoperable) digital version of songs, although switching to piracy as a result seems like an extreme solution to this problem.
The most favourable outcome for Joel Tenenbaum would then be a reduction of the damages from $22,500 per song to something more manageable like $750 per song, the minimum in damages.
More:
Comment